Sitting of 3 February 1981

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

    Health Authorities (Financial Plans)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects health authorities to be in a position to formulate definite financial plans for the financial year 1981–82.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I hope to be able to notify regional health authorities of their volume allocations for capital and revenue within the next few days.
    Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Kent area health authority has published contingency plans for a 2 per cent, cut, based on the possibility of underfunding of the amount in the coming year? Does he agree that the authority is being unduly alarmist? Does he also agree, however, that it emphasises the importance of moderate wage settlements within the cash limits?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is always wise for treasurers to make reasonable provisions, because the future cannot be known with certainty. I certainly agree that when we set the cash limits it will be most important that settlements are made within the cash limit factor, because otherwise the money will have to come out of services for patients.
    Mrs. Knight: In the context of financial planning, has my right hon. Friend met with any success in dealing with the well-documented suggestions that there is fairly wide-scale abuse by hospital staff, particularly in the pilfering of hospital equipment and food and the making of false claims for overtime by maintenance and ancillary staff? Is he aware that it is said that the cost to the NHS is at least £50 million a year? Will he comment on that?
    Mr. Jenkin: If my hon. Friend has any evidence to support those allegations, they should be investigated by local health authorities, which are maintaining tight security on such matters. If it is suspected that pilfering is going on, it is right that they should do that.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the financial position of the Trent regional authority, which has been the Cinderella authority for a considerable time? Is he making any provision in the financial arrangements to enable the Trent authority to catch up with the others?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the current year the increase in the volume allocation to the Trent authority was twice that of the four Thames regions.

    Handicapped Children
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the treatment provided within the National Health Service for newly born handicapped children.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): No, Sir. We always hope to see still further improvements. The House will be pleased to know that there has been a major reduction in the perinatal mortality rate in the past five years from 20·3 per 1,000 in 1974 to 14·7 in 1979.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to allegations that lethal doses of the sedative DF 118 have been administered to newly born handicapped children? If so, what action does he propose to take on that matter, which is of great concern to those of us who are intensly interested in the handicapped from birth onwards?
    Dr. Vaughan: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that subject, which is a matter of considerable concern. We are looking into the implications.
    Mr. Freud: Is it not time that there was a statutory duty imposed on the NHS to acquaint the parents of handicapped children with the names and addresses of voluntary organisations that support the handicaps in question?
    Dr. Vaughan: There is already a wide range of services available from the statutory agencies, including multi-disciplinary assessments, treatment and advice. I shall gladly look into the matter if the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he has in mind.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: While acknowledging that there has been an overall improvement in the perinatal mortality rates, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there are still substantial regional variations? With regard to the care of neonates, will the Minister take the advice offered by the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and consider multi-disciplinary analysis of the needs of the handicapped neonates?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes, that is a very important part of our programme for helping newly born handicapped children. This is now one of the most important current developments in paediatric care, and one which I think all hon. Members will want to see developed further.

    International Year of Disabled People
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the events which he intends to attend in connection with the International Year of Disabled People.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): Invitations are now being received, and I intend to accept as many as possible around the country which are connected with the International Year of Disabled People.
    Miss Richardson: I hope that when the Minister goes to the functions to which he has been invited, the people who are there will make it clear to him how disappointed they are at the measures for disabled people which the Government have announced. On one of these occasions,

    131
    as he has not been able to do so in the House, will he give his Department's views on NIAC's proposals for the non-contributory household duties test?
    Mr. Rossi: I am aware of the difficulties that the previous Administration ran into on this matter. I am also aware that the council asked for a review to be carried out on the alternative test that might be applicable. That review is being carried out at the moment. As the committee suggested, we are also considering what is being done in other countries. As soon as the review has been completed, we shall bring the matter before the House.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that the International Year of Disabled People is marked by a new initiative on the part of the Government—albeit modest in expenditure—to make certain that progress in this important area is maintained?
    Mr. Rossi: We are anxious to do whatever we can to help the disabled, but we must have regard to the current economic situation. It is difficult to find resources that we can apply to new types of assistance. We place great emphasis on the importance of trying to draw the attention of the public to the disabled and to seek to change general attitudes.
    Mr. Ashley: Would it be a constructive contribution to the International Year of Disabled People if the Minister could arrange a special conference between the directors of social services and the managers of social security offices, to discuss the impact on disabled people of cuts in social services, a new scheme for supplementary benefit and their views on the need for a statutory additional cost allowance?
    Mr. Rossi: That is an interesting suggestion. I shall consider the matter to see whether it is possible to call a conference to discuss ways in which it is possible, within the present economic restraints, to give help to the disabled.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming and give a pledge to meet the representatives of parents of severely mentally handicapped children who look after those children at home, and confirm that, no matter how limited the resources of the Government, these parents should be given the help they need and deserve, perhaps above many other causes?
    Mr. Rossi: I am aware of that problem because within my constituency I have been interested in the work of a voluntary organisation concerned with mentally and physically handicapped children. I shall always keep my door open to representations and do the best I possibly can to help, within the restraints of the economy.
    Mr. Alton: In this International Year of Disabled People, will the Minister give the House an undertaking to have discussions with some of his ministerial colleagues, including Ministers from the Department of Trade, and some of the major insurance companies about the problems mentally handicapped children have in obtaining insurance? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of my constituents have made representations to me on that matter? I should be grateful if the Minister would make a statement.
    Mr. Rossi: I shall look into that matter if the hon. Member will send me the details.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister will have seen from the many recent press reports that the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation is considering, with other major voluntary organisations, whether legal action should be taken against local authorities which are failing to discharge their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. What action does the Minister propose to take against defaulting authorities? May we take it that he will work in the closest possible rapport with the voluntary sector in insisting on the full and humane implementation of that Act?
    Mr. Rossi: Under the Act, there is a statutory obligation on local authorities. The sanctions exist under the Act. Court proceedings are contemplated. We shall see what the results of those proceedings is. There is always a reserve power in the hands of my right hon. Friend. When matters are appropriate, the use of those powers will be considered.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive child benefit are receiving it.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It is estimated that virtually 100 per cent, of those entitled to child benefit are receiving it.
    Mr. Knox: The situation is obviously satisfactory, but would my hon. Friend care to estimate what percentage of one-parent families are in receipt of the extra amount of child benefit? What steps are being taken to improve that?
    Mrs. Chalker: The take-up of the child benefit increase is estimated to be about 60 per cent, at the moment. We are not satisfied with that amount. My hon. Friend will have seen that I answered a question on 22 January announcing a change of name from "child benefit increase" to "one parent benefit," which will take place in April. Inevitably, there will be associated publicity with the change of name. We shall consider further steps to make as many single parents as possible aware that they should make a claim for one-parent benefit. Any help that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members can give will be much welcomed.
    Mr. Buchan: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that there is a strong contrast between the enthusiasm with which the Government have pursued fraud and their failure to develop take-up of benefits, particularly with reference to the attacks made on the local authority in Strathclyde? Strathclyde's necessary measure to increase take-up has been successful. Would she not further agree that the appalling figure of only 60 per cent, take-up in single parent families requires special measures beyond that of renaming the increase?
    Mr. Chalker: On 1 December 1978, there were 306,000 recipients of child benefit increase. That figure increased to 384,000 by 18 December 1979, and on 17 December 1980, there were 443,000. That is an increase on the previous figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that whenever someone is entitled to child benefit increase—as it is known at the moment—he must make a claim for it.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the supplementary benefit deluge of postcards in Strathclyde at the conclusion

    133
    of the previous supplementary benefits scheme before 24 November. Whereas about 100,000 of those postcards were sent out, I understand that the take-up was nothing like what was anticipated by those who conducted the campaign.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that she and her Department will continue to press the Treasury to uprate child benefit in line with inflation at all opportunities, given its many advantages, which all hon. Members recognise?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the comments of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will not the Minister agree that one of the reasons why the take-up of child benefit is better and greater than that of other benefits is that the benefit is not means tested? Does that not demonstrate that many more benefits would be taken up if there were no means tests?
    Mrs. Chalker: Child benefit is not means tested, and neither is child benefit increase. If one follows the hon. Gentleman's analogy there is no reason why we should not have a better take-up of child benefit increase. He knows—and the House knows—that we now spend about £3,300 million on child benefit. All non-means tested benefits are extremely expensive. We use means tested benefits to help those who are most in need. We hope that people will make their applications where they are so entitled.
    Mr. Freud: In a spirit of total helpfulness, may I suggest that the Government could save some of the £1 ½ million that they are currently spending on advertising indexed-linked retirement certificates, which are a rotten bargain by any standards, and use the money to advertise single-parent family benefits so that they may be claimed in full?
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the notice of the Treasury?

    "Inequalities of Health"
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take immediate steps to diminish the difference in the quality of care and attention that the different sections of society receive from the National Health Service, in response to the report "Inequalities of Health".
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Black report does not confirm that there are significant differences in the quality of care and attention received by different sections of society. The hon. Gentleman's question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State accept that I am appalled by his reply? Is he aware that, although the Black report does not give much encouragement to those of us on the Opposition Benches either, at least we recognise that it is dynamite? Will he reconsider his glib response to a report that he deliberately hushed up because it showed that working men and women cannot take advantage of the benefits of a longer and healthier life, which are their due?
    Mr. Jenkin: To send 100 copies of the Black report to the national and regional press and the broadcasting authorities is a pretty funny way of "hushing" it up.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State agree that so far the redistribution of resources to the Northern region is completely inadequate in the light of the problems in an area of such high unemployment? Will he undertake that in the next review of his budget he will do very much better?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I wish that we could achieve a faster distribution to the regions that are less well provided for, but the speed of the redistribution must depend on the growth precisely as planned by our predecessors. It does not leave much room for redistribution from the well provided areas to the less well provided areas.
    Mr. Terry Davis: How can the Secretary of State deny that the report shows gross inequality in health between the poorer and better-off families? Is it not time to make a concerted effort to break once and for all the connection between health and wealth
    Mr. Jenkin: That was not the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). It concerned the quality of care and attention that different sections of society receive from the National Health Service. My Department's research has been reinforced by the work done by Professor Rudolph Klein and Elizabeth Collins. It shows that there is no difference between the quality of care given by the National Health Service in different regions and to different classes. However, I am still waiting to hear from the Opposition how it is that, 30 years after the NHS came into existence, the inequalities of which the hon. Gentleman speaks are as bad as they ever were, and in some cases worse.

  National Health Service

    (Managerial and Trade Union Responsibilities)
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions he has been informed of a conflict between managerial responsbilities and trade union activities in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I would not usually expect to be informed about this type of management issue, which is for health authorities to resolve. One recent incident was brought to my notice by the press.
    Mr. Freeson: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's Department issued a secret instruction to regional hospital authorities asking them to report on the extent of the involvement of managerial staff in trade union activities, which is trespassing on their rights under the Employment Act? What is going on in that regard in his Department?
    Mr. Jenkin: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first two questions are "No, Sir" and "No, Sir". The vast majority of people in the National Health Service recognise the potential conflict between management responsibilities and active trade union participation. Fortunately, the problem arises very rarely indeed. I have given no instructions to anyone about it.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence shows that there is far less conflict between management and trade union activities when the

    135
    ancillary services in the Health Service are run by private enterprise and not direct labour? What steps is he taking to encourage the greater use of private enterprise in the Health Service?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is most assiduous in drawing that important development to our attention. I assure him that my hon. Friends and I lose no opportunity to impress on health authorities the desirability of getting the best possible bargain for the provision of ancillary services and the fact that they should look to the private sector when they believe that they can get a better bargain instead of employing their own staff directly.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Minister aware that the continuing short-changing of the NHS by the Government is producing a situation where there is bound to be conflict between management in the NHS and Health Service workers? Will he and his colleagues please give up their Scrooge-like attitude so that we can have a decent Health Service at long last?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must know that the expenditure projections of this Government are precisely in line with those of our predecessors. He should direct his criticisms to his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals).
    Mr. Terry Davis: Why is the Secretary of State being so coy about the document issued in November? May I remind him that he asked regional personnel officers to report on the extent to which managerial staff are engaged in trade union activities? Why did he want that information?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman no doubt had his attention drawn to the case of the sector administrator in one hospital who was being disciplined becase she took action on a picket line, picketing another hospital in the same district. Her managament considered that that was inconsistent with her management obligations. She was a local COHSE chairman. It seemed to me in those circumstances that it might be wise to see whether such a situation was widespread. I am happy to say that it is not. I have issued no instructions to anyone about the matter.

    Agency Nurses
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost to the National Health Service in the past 12 months of the employment of agency nurses.
    Dr. Vaughan: In the financial year 1979–80, the cost of employing agency nurses in the NHS amounted to £30·3 million.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that in certain circumstances such expenditure could be wasteful, because other hospitals often do not have the financial resources to employ the number of NHS nurses that they need? Does he accept that it is in a sense another example of a hidden subsidy from the NHS to the private sector, since most of the nurses will have been trained by the NHS?
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept that. We are talking about relatively small numbers—some 4,300 agency nurses working in the NHS. On average, the total cost of an agency nurse is very little different from that of a directly employed nurse.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister examine the problems that occur where agency nurses have to be used? Is he aware that, for example, in Kensington and Chelsea, 1,200 private beds already exist, with another 349 in the pipeline, a situation which is leading to an acute shortage of nursing staff, particularly specialist nurses? Does he realise that the problem exists throughout London? Will he accept that the drain of nurses to look after private patients is forcing the NHS to employ agency nurses?
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept that. The majority of nurses working with agencies do so because the system is more flexible. They can make better provision for their personal needs in terms of working hours and availability during the week. The hon. Gentleman is correct about London. About 90 per cent, of agency nurses are working in the London region.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that where agency nurses are employed alongside NHS nurses there is a great deal of ill-feeling? With the encouragement that the Minister is giving to private practice, shall we not soon reach the position where NHS nurses are paid considerably less than agency nurses, but will be providing, if only by default, services for the private sector?
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not know where the hon. Lady gets her information. I know of no great friction or rivalry between agency nurses and general nurses working in the NHS. No nurse likes to have a strange nurse who does not understand the layout in the ward and we are very conscious of that.

    Quangos
    Mr. Philip Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the net change in the number of official bodies to which he makes appointments, other than civil servants, resulting from the abolition of the area health authorities.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: At present I appoint the chairmen of 90 area health authorities. In order to achieve our aim of much more local decision taking in the Health Service, those will be replaced by between 180 and 200 district health authorities, whose chairmen will again be appointed by me.
    Mr. Holland: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that when his Department seeks solutions to problems in the Health Service it invariably ends up with either more official bodies or more official appointments—or both? Does the DHSS find considerable pleasure in dancing the quango with its basic one step forward and two steps back? Will he try to stimulate a little more enthusiasm for that healthier outdoor pursuit, hunting the quango?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the House admires the work of my hon. Friend in his pursuit of the case for reducing the number of official bodies. The logic of his argument about health authorities is that the National Health Service should be run not by health authorities but directly by my Department. That would give rise to a wholly unacceptable and unworkable degree of centralisation. I am sure that both the House and the Health Service want a greater degree of decentralisation. That must postulate more local health authorities.
    Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied with the balance between the provision of services and the

    137
    recruitment of personnel to the NHS, bearing in mind that the NHS has continued its recruitment every year for the past 20 years, and last year alone increased its numbers by some 25,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for a careful check on the numbers employed in the NHS to determine whether it needs, for example, so many clerks and administrators?
    Mr. Jenkin: I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I am sure that he recognises that in a programme such as that of the NHS, which is virtually the only programme that is growing during this period of severe economic restraint, and where 70 per cent, of costs are manpower costs, the growth of its services inevitably means growth in the number of doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors, and all the other health care professionals who provide a service for patients. We are maintaining a very tight control on administrative costs. During the course of the reorganisation we shall be looking for significant savings in administration through the application of firm administrative cost limits. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to cut the cost of administration in the Health Service.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Secretary of State aware that since reorganisation of the NHS the St. Helens and Knowsley area health authority has done a tremendous job in reorganising all the requirements in the NHS? Does he realise that to abolish an area health authority such as that would be nothing less than scandalous?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have not yet received proposals from the regional health authority. I shall consider them carefully when they arrive, and take account of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not the case that the NHS needs good administrators, not necessarily fewer administrators? Will the Minister take on board the fact that if he continually seeks both to bully the trade unions in the NHS and constantly to have a go at the administration, he will not get the professional service that he purports to seek?
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree that we need the highest quality of management in the NHS that we can secure. I deny entirely that I am bullying the trade unions. I happen to enjoy an extremely good relationship both with the health services committee of the TUC and with the individual unions involved.

    Leicestershire
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Social Services whether he will now announce his decision on the future administrative structure of the National Health Service in Leicestershire.
    Dr. Vaughan: No, Sir. Regional health authorities have been asked to submit proposals for the future pattern of district health authorities in their regions by the end of February. We have not yet received Trent regional health authority's proposals.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Trent region's restructuring committee has officially recommended a single district authority for the county of Leicestershire, and that that proposal has wide support in the medical and allied professions in the county? Will he confirm that exceeding the 500,000 maximum target will be permitted in exceptional circumstances?
    Dr. Vaughan: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. There would have to be exceptional circumstances for a new district health authority to serve a population of more than 500,000. However, special reasons may be involved, and we shall consider them when the proposals are put to us.

    Private Health Insurance Schemes
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce measures to encourage the membership of private health insurance schemes.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Government aim to encourage the development of independent health care as a worthwhile contribution to meeting the health needs of the nation. Recent figures suggest that we are succeeding.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year private patients saved the taxpayer £86 million? Is he now in a position to accept the recommendation contained in the report commissioned by his Department to the effect that a study be made of the reasons why so many individuals, firms and trade unions are opting for private care?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am not in a position to confirm or deny the figures given by my hon. Friend. It is clear that a large number of people recognise the sense of making private provision for health care including, as my hon. Friend mentioned, a number of trade unions. In recent opinion poll, when trade union members were asked whether they would accept private health insurance as part of their employment package, two-thirds said that they would be happy to accept such an offer if it were made.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the old, the chronically sick and the disabled are the very people who will not be accepted by private insurance schemes? In so far as the Government intend to finance the NHS basically by private insurance, does he realise that that will be a fundamental destruction of the Christian principles on which the NHS is based?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman persists in missing the point. If private insurance and private care can relieve the NHS of some part of acute in-patient care, that leaves more resources for the NHS to spend on those who do not have private care, which includes the Cinderella services for the elderly and the handicapped. That must be true.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend indicate the implications for NHS hospital waiting lists if there were no private health care schemes available?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. For non-urgent operations such as orthopaedic operations, hip transplants and so on, if there were no private beds and no private hospitals, inevitably NHS waiting lists would be much longer.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggestion that robbing the NHS of consultants and other personnel, trained by the taxpayer in Britain, does not diminish the services of the NHS? Is he not aware, for example, that the use of the Princess Margaret hospital in my area to beckon people from America for private care is having a detrimental effect upon the NHS services?
    Mr. Jenkin: Private insurance and private health care bring more resources to the health needs of the

    139
    nation—money that would not otherwise be spent—and, therefore, allow the employment of more consultants and more nurses in the NHS. The Opposition persist in playing a zero sum game. It is not the case. It brings extra resources to health care.

    MIND
    Mr. van Staubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet determined the size of the grant he proposes to make to MIND for 1981–82.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir. MIND has not yet made an application for a grant for 1981–82.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Responding to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when my right hon. Friend comes to settle the grant will he remember the fine work carries out by the local groups of MIND? Will he simply confine his representations to the headquarters of that organisation, and say that next time it makes accusations—and I have been warned that there are more to come—against the medical and nursing staff of a hospital, it should do so quietly and professionally and not by way of a public press conference designed to secure the maximum hurt to people who are at least as much concerned as MIND with the care of the mentally ill?
    Mr. Jenkin: Last Friday I paid a visit to Rampton hospital, not to Broadmoor in my hon. Friend's constituency. I should like to tell the House, as I said to the press after my visit, that I was enormously impressed by the devoted care given by the staff, particularly the nurses, at that hospital, to some of the unfortunate and difficult people who are entrusted to their charge. Those who make accusations of brutality or other malpractice on the part of staff who have those heavy responsibilities owe it to the staff, the public and the service as a whole to do so in the most careful, responsible and well researched manner. If my hon. Friend's campaign, for such it is, can lead those who are tempted to make these charges to do so in such a way, it will have served a valuable purpose.
    Mr. Ennals: When the Secretary of State considers the application from MIND, will he be quite uninfluenced by the campaign of abuse and denigration, in some cases against individuals who work for MIND, under the protection of parliamentary privilege and not publicly where it could be challenged? Will he be uninfluenced by such a campaign that can bring only disrepute to the House and to our time honoured principle of privilege?
    Mr. Jenkin: I intend to follow the four considerations that I set out in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 1 July 1980, namely our priority for mental health, our high opinion of MIND's work especially by its branches, our assessment of its income and expenditure and our general policy on grants under section 64.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were in receipt of supplementary benefit in the last week for which statistics are available; and what are the most recent projections made by his Department of the average number of recipients in each of the next three financial years.
    Mrs. Chalker: About 3,200,000 claimants, including school leavers, in August 1980. The most recent published projections for the next three years were given in the 1979 public expenditure White Paper published in March 1980—"The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81 to 1983–84" Cmnd. 7841 table 2.12.2 on pages 114–115.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that a large proportion of the increases in supplementary benefits is due to the rise in the number of unemployed? Is it not the case that the real value of the flat-rate benefits has been cut and that the projections include the abolition of the earnings related supplement? Does she agree that it is a disgrace that people are being subjected to the indignity of means-tested benefits, which will be more expensive for the Government? Does she agree that it would be better to restore the flat rate benefits and stop the abolition of the earnings-related supplement?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House knows full well that the measures that have to be taken are not against the unemployed but are intended to bring our public expenditure under control. We estimate that the total number of supplementary benefit claimants, as a result of all the measures, will be about 110,000. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to paint the abatement in unemployment benefit as he did. It is a temporary measure pending taxation which all parties in the House have agreed.
    Mr. Buchan: Is it not an appalling indictment of the Government that their economic and social policies to deal with the economic catastrophe are putting more and more people on to means-tested benefits? Was not the Welfare State constructed on the basis of rights? Is not the hon. Lady replacing that with a mean and squalid form of support? In a single Bill last year 110,000 more people were shoved away from rights on to the means-tested benefits? Is that not a disgrace?
    Mrs. Chalker: The House knows that unless we reduce inflation the value of benefits has no real meaning for the people who have to receive them. We know that inflation hits poor people harder than others. We have given full price protection to the recipients of the safety net benefits, the family income supplement and supplementary benefit. In simplifying the supplementary benefit scheme we have directed more resources to those who need it, such as families with children. Nobody welcomes the present number of unemployed and the Government are doing their best to reduce inflation and public expenditure so as to bring down the rate of unemployment as fast as we can.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: What action is the Department taking about those who, because they have been unemployed for 12 months, have lost their benefit? I have drawn attention to these cases previously. They receive social- security benefit but have now been informed that because they will not attend a re-settlement camp at Henley-in-Arden they are to be denied any income. What action are the Government taking?
    Mrs. Chalker: Although I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before Christmas on this matter, he gave me the details in the middle of last month. Since I received his letter on 12 January I have had a full investigation made in to the section 10 directions on his two

    141
    constituents. I shall be writing to him in a few days to let him know the outcome, what has happened and what should happen.

  Prime Minister

    Engagements
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 3 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Inaddition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister confirm what she said on Weekend Television last Sunday, when she suggested that if unemployment reached 3 million or even 4 million she would not change her policies? Does she recall that in the 1930s high unemployment and low rates of inflation co-existed? Will she tell the House whether there is any rate of inflation at which her Government's economic priorities will tackle unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to re-affirm what I said on television, that the way to provide sound, long term jobs in the future is to fight inflation now and to continue to fight it.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Referring to the continuing challenge to the Communist monopoly in Poland, when my right hon. Friend meets President Reagan later this month will she discuss with him whether it would be better now rather than after the event for the West to spell out the nature of the retaliation that we would take against the Soviets in the event of their intervention in Poland?
    The Prime Minister: I shall discuss all these matters with President Reagan. But I would counsel caution on the course which my hon. Friend, no doubt with the best of intentions, would have me pursue.
    Mr. Foot: Does the most regrettable re-affirmation by the right hon. Lady of what she said on television on Sunday mean that when she goes to the meeting of NEDO tomorrow she will flatly refuse to examine the alternative policies put forward by the TUC or by the CBI? What will be the purpose of the meeting if she is not going there to listen?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in securing better long-term prospects for jobs he will fight inflation now. If he is not interested in better long-term prospects for jobs, he will retreat to the short-term expedient of reflating and printing money now. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I shall be going to Neddy to take the chair, as I do once a year. That was arranged long before the TUC document. Doubtless it will wish to raise some of the things in that document in the discussion on industrial policy.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate, as she has already had a copy of the TUC document, that it explains how she, under her unique arrangements, has managed to achieve the combination of a far worse recession in this country than in most other countries combined with a higher rate of inflation than most of our competitors? Will she explain how she has achieved that? Will she also tell us whether she is taking that body
    142
    seriously? Will she say that she will examine these matters carefully? Does she understand that, when she has brought inflation down to the point where she started putting it up, she will have a right to talk on the subject?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman examines the inflation figures he will find that the rate of inflation is falling comparatively fast here when it is still rising in other countries. If he looks at his Government's record on inflation he will find that when they had been in Government for 20 or 21 months the inflation rate was 24 per cent.
    Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Lady continues to boast about what she has done about inflation, will she tell us the inflation figure that was left to the Labour Government in 1974 and the figure that we left her?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's precise question, the figure was 10·1 per cent, in April 1979. That figure followed an average inflation—[Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to be selective but to give the whole figure. That followed an average rate of inflation in 1975 of 24·2 per cent., in 1976 of 16·5 per cent, and in 1977 of 15·8 percent. Those were three years when it was much worse than it was in our first year—in 1979, when it was 13·4 per cent.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Prime Minister refused to report to the House about her meeting with Charles Haughey in Dublin, and now that she has announced joint studies, will she say where they are taking place? How many civil servants from the United Kingdom and from the Irish Republic are taking part in the joint studies? Will she not push under the counter this most important question for the people of Northern Ireland as she did yesterday when a colleague asked a question?
    The Prime Minister: The studies, which have just started, are taking place in the capitals of the respective countries—London and Dublin. Ministers will, of course, keep a close watch on progress.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister spend a few minutes looking at the survey which shows that the chairmen and managing directors of many large companies are giving themselves 40 per cent, wage increases when they are preaching wage restraint and putting thousands of their own workers on to the dole queues? Will she condemn such divisive action? If there is to be a tax clawback in the Budget will she ensure that these very rich men, who have received massive tax handouts from her Government, are the first to pay?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot emphasise too often that it is vital, at whatever level of employment in a commercial or industrial company, that increases in pay go hand in hand with increases in productivity.
    Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since last summer the rate of inflation has been lower than that of the average of our EEC and OECD competitors? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, most regrettably, since then

    143
    the percentage increases in unemployment in Germany, France and the Netherlands have also been much higher than in this country?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that the recession hit different countries at different rates and at different times. The percentage increase in unemployment in Germany, Denmark and Holland between August and December rose faster than in this country in the same period.
    Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister had time to read the article in The Times today which suggests that the tax burden of the average individual increased by 10 per cent, in the last two years that she has been in office? Can she confirm that figure? If it is correct does she regard it as part of the battle against inflation?
    The Prime Minister: If my memory serves me correctly that figure was of the overall tax burden, including, of course, the considerable tax levied on North Sea oil revenues. The right hon. Gentleman is always trying to persuade me to put up public expenditure. The last Labour Government also wanted increased public spending. Had we followed his or their advice the tax burden now would be much worse.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that computer staffs in the public service are under extreme pressure from trade unions in the public sector to act as latterday storm troopers in fighting the Government's policy? Does she accept that such sabotage will in the long term only do damage to the standing of computer professions and to the efficiency of information processing in the public sector?
    The Prime Minister: It is absolutely vital in the public sector, as elsewhere, that we use all technology to its maximum extent and that the highest traditions of the public service are honoured in that as in other spheres of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the devastating effects of her policies on the people of this country? Notwithstanding what she said on television at the weekend, will she take time off to look in the mirror and ask "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, could I be the wrongest of them all?"
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allan Stewartasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the management and work force of John Brown Engineering, a firm of major importance in West Central Scotland, on achieving a £25 million new export order? Since the company was able to achieve that because of the responsible 7 percent, wage settlement last October, does she agree that it demonstrates the increasing climate of responsibility and co-operation which is enabling British industry to increase its competitiveness in world markets?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly congratulate that firm, both on the achievement of that export order and on the realistic attitude of its work force which led to that achievement. Having seen that report and having made
    144
    further inquiries today, I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that that firm announced today a further export order for £35 million. Many congratulations.
    Mr. Maclennan: May I refer to the Prime Minister's forthcoming meeting with President Reagan? Do the Government have it in mind to seek, with the President, to bring the maximum pressure to bear on the Republic of South Africa to reopen negotiations on Namibia which have broken down through the wholly inexcusably intransigence of the South African Government? Will she raise the question of incursions into Mozambique which the Republic has embarked upon?
    The Prime Minister: We are all anxious to try to bring about a solution to the Namibia problem and to bring Namibia to independence. I shall raise that subject in a way which I hope will achieve as near a solution to that problem as possible.
    Mr. Bob Dunnasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while a Bill gives details in the explanatory and financial memorandum of its manpower implications, insufficient machinery exists for monitoring staffing levels once the legislation is enacted? Will she take steps to improve that monitoring?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that the monitoring of the numbers of people involved in the provisions of a particular Bill is not necessarily exact. As my hon. Friend knows, we are putting more effort into increased efficiency in the Civil Service. The Civil Service itself is working with a will towards that end. We have reduced the numbers in the Civil Service by 35,000 since we came to power. I cannot emphasise too strongly that many young and older people in the civil service are determined to secure the most efficient administration of any country and they are co-operating fully in that effort.
    Mr. McNamara: Has the right hon. Lady had an opportunity yet to consider what Prime Minister Trudeau has said about the undertakings that she is supposed to have given last June about repatriating the Canadian constitution to Canada? Does she intend to impose a three-line Whip? What advice would the Prime Minister give to the House when President Trudeau is so unsure of the smell of his legislation that he says that we should hold our noses while we let it pass?
    The Prime Minister: Matters concerning three-line Whips are not usually discussed until we have the business before us for the next week. We have not yet received a request from the Government or Parliament of Canada. I take the view that I have always taken, that when we receive a request from the Government and Parliament of Canada we have to deal with it as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with precedent and with the law.

    Questions to Ministers
    Mr. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take your mind back to a reply to question No. 7 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)? He asked the Secretary' of State about the

    145
    existence of a memorandum issued by the DHSS seeking imformation on trade union activities of individuals employed in the National Health Service. The Secretary of State denied the existence of any such memorandum, and yet a few moments later, in reply to a further question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) he went into great detail about an incident that had arisen, leading to the existence of the memorandum. What safeguard do Back Benchers have against deliberately misleading information from the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Speaker: I heard the exchange, the hon. Gentleman heard the exchange, and there is no point of order on which I can give a ruling in that regard.

    DOMESTIC RATING (ABOLITION)
    Mr. Christopher Murphy, supported by Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. David Bevan, Mr. Tim Brinton, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Den Dover, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Warren Hawksley, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. Richard Shepherd, presented a Bill to abolish the power of local authorities to levy rates on domestic householders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 February and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Portavadie (Public Inquiry)
3.32 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the holding of a public inquiry into the sale of the village at the platform construction site in Portavadie.
The village to which I refer was built in 1975 with £3·3 million of public money, but due to an omission, an error, a blunder—call it what you may—by either the Scottish Office or the Department of Energy, or both, the ownership of the village passed to a company called Sea Platform Constructors (Scotland) Ltd. because the Department or Departments failed to buy the land from it. Under the provisions of Scottish law, the ownership of the village passed to the private owners of the land on which the village was sited.
Sea Platform Constructors (Scotland) Ltd. is half-owned by Lord Matthews' Trafalgar House Group, which bought the land for £150,000 from a local farmer in 1974. No doubt the yard and the village adjacent to the yard were built with good intentions way back in 1974–75, the purpose of the village being to house workers for the nearby platform construction yard. In the event, the yard failed to get any orders, partly due to the drop in popularity of concrete platforms compared with steel-structured platforms. I am informed that since 1975 no concrete platforms have been ordered for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea.
A few weeks ago, on Christmas Eve, a company called Bretshire Enterprises, registered in the Dutch Antilles, was reported to have bought the village for £175,000 from Sea Platform Constructors (Scotland) Ltd. A few days later it was sold to a third party, as yet unnamed, for £450,000. That is not a bad killing in a few days. It is a profit of over 150 per cent. The representative of Bretshire Enterprises, a Mr. Oliver Iny, seems to be very secretive about giving any information regarding the sale, and there is an air of mystery surrounding the whole transaction. This is a story of official blunders, allowing private speculators to make a quick killing out of a public asset that was built with a considerable amount of public money. There is also the possibility that tax dodging is taking place.
There is a great deal of public concern in Scotland and elsewhere. The public are entitled to know about this matter, because the project was built with their money. There is a great deal of public suspicion about a cover-up. The best way to allay that suspicion would be to hold a public inquiry. Yet last month, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he had no intention of holding a public inquiry. That indicates a considerable degree of complacency on his part, especially in view of the prima facie evidence that was dug out by the media and the Public Accounts Committee.
On July 1979 the Public Accounts Committee was told that the Government did not buy the site because Sea Platform Constructors (Scotland) Ltd. was reluctant to sell the site. However, even after the village was constructed the Government were refused access to maintain the buildings, which had been built with public money. According to the Government balance sheet of 31 March 1978 the village appears as an asset, and yet under Scottish law it did not even belong to them.
On 18 June 1980, a Mr. Gillett, secretary of the Scottish Development Department, told the Public Accounts
148
Committee that the Government were no longer interested in buying the village, but he seemed unaware that the village was up for offer as a holiday or leisure centre at a reserve price of £500,000. I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Public Accounts Committee for the information that it has unearthed, but there are still many questions that have been left unanswered.
Did the Scottish Office advise the Department of Energy about the implications under Scottish law whereby, if it failed to take the land into public ownership, the ownership of the village would pass on to the private owners of the land? If it did not pass on that information, why not, and what happened to the responsible official? Is he still at St. Andrew's House, advising—or misadvising—Ministers? If the Scottish Office gave the appropriate advice, which seems likely on the evidence of Mr. Gillett, who told the Public Accounts Committee that at no stage did the two Departments act independently, why did the Department of Energy decide to spend £3·3 million of public money without taking the land into public ownership? Who in the Department of Energy was responsible for advising the go-ahead? What happened to him? Is he still at Millbank advising—or misadvising—Ministers?
There is also the question why the village appeared as an asset in the Government balance sheet when it did not even belong to the Government. There is also the deeper question of what efforts were made to get an order. I realise the difficulties, due to the decrease in popularity of concrete platforms, but there was at least one North Sea order after 1975, which went to Norway. There is also the question of the local planning authority's having laid down at the outset that the building should be easily convertible to leisure or recreational use. Why did not the Government take any initiative in conjunction with the Scottish Tourist Board or the Highlands and Islands Development Board in order to find such an alternative use for the village? Who is the present owner? This morning I telephoned the solicitor in charge of the latest transaction and the local authority, the Argyll and Bute district council. They were not able to tell me the present owner of the village, and the local authority told me that no planning permission had yet been submitted for change of use.
Is there any connection between Sea Platform Constructors (Scotland) Ltd., Bretshire Enterprises and the present owner? Is it merely the normal relationship between vendor and purchaser, or is there something deeper? There is the possibility of tax evasion or avoidance. Has development land tax been paid on the transaction, and any other taxes that are due?
Why is the Secretary of State for Scotland reluctant to hold a public inquiry? Has he something to hide, or is there someone in the Scottish Office with a lot to hide? Last year we had the Robroyston scandal, when a publicly owned asset, a former hospital site, was sold off and private speculators were able to make hundreds of thousands of pounds of profit. I maintain that the public are entitled to know why £3.3 million of their money apparently went down the drain at Portavadie while a speculator was able to make a profit over a few days of over 150 per cent. If we are to get to the root of the matter, the public are entitled to a public inquiry, and that is why I am asking for leave to introduce the Bill.
Mr. John MacKay Mr. John MacKay (Argyll) rose—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notice that one hon. Member seeks to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether I should raise my point of order now or when my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) has made his contribution.
Mr. Speaker: It will be better if the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) waits until the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) has spoken. On these occasions it is our custom that both contributors are heard without interruption, or reasonably so.
3.42 pm
Mr. John MacKay: The subject of the Bill of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is a village in my constituency. I was under the impression that one of the conventions and courtesies of the House was that if an hon. Member intended to raise a matter pertaining to another hon. Member's constituency he should at least take the trouble to send a note to that hon. Member. I fear that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman did not send me such a note.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Disgraceful.
Mr. MacKay: However, at 2.32 pm today the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would assent to his Bill. That was the first time that he had the courtesy to tell me that he was raising the issue.
The hon. Gentleman wishes to set up an inquiry into the sale of the village of Portavadie. If ever there was an example of shutting the stable door after the horse had long since bolted, this is it. More than enough taxpayers' money has been squandered on this white elephant without the cost of a public inquiry, which would not save the taxpayers a single penny.
I shall rehearse briefly the facts of Portavadie. In 1975 the then Labour Government were being pressured to encourage the building of concrete platforms. The press and Scottish opposition parties, such as the Scottish National Party were claiming that Norway was scooping the market and that we were being left behind. Of course, right reason or none, we had to copy Norway. That has proved to be an expensive mistake.
Prior to 1975 Sea Platform Constructors (Scotland) Ltd. had been looking for a site at which to build a dry dock for the concrete platform system that it had designed. It decided on Portavadie and bought a piece of land on which subsequently the village was built. However, during the planning and planning permission stage SPCS began to have doubts about concrete platforms. It began to think that perhaps they were not the way forward and that they were the dead end that they have proved to be. As a result, SPCS was reluctant to invest its own money in that project.
Along came the then Labour Government, who decided to put public money into the project. The Department of Energy, then headed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who is probably not unknown to the hon. Gentleman, entered into a contract with SPCS to build the dry dock and the village to accommodate the workers. The sums involved were £11.4 million for the dry dock and £3.4 million for the village. Some hon. Members may think that that deserves an inquiry, but that is not what the hon. Gentleman's Bill seeks to do.
150
Although the dock site belonged to the Government via the Forestry Commission, the village site belonged to SPCS, which had bought it when it identified the site prior to 1975. However, the Government were in such a hurry that they decided that the building should go ahead while they negotiated to buy the land. The head of the Department that was to negotiate to buy the land was the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), one of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Where is he?
Mr. MacKay: The House might think that that was worthy of an inquiry. The negotiations did not go at all well. In fact, they did not go anywhere at all, and while they were failing the market for concrete platforms absolutely disappeared. By 1978 the Labour Government decided to withdraw from the negotiations. At that stage it was clear that there was no obvious use for the complex and that to buy the land from the company and to maintain the village would be a total waste of public money, an example of throwing good money after bad.
That was the situation until the end of 1980. Matters became worse and it was clear that about £500,000 would be needed to put the village back in order. That expenditure would have been necessary if it had been bought by the Government last month. The Government had no possible use for it. If they had bought it, I would have contended that it was an absolute waste of public money. The Government were rightly not interested, as were the previous Labour Government. Thus under Scots laws, as the hon. Gentleman said, the village reverted to the owners of the land. According to press reports, it has been sold and sold again.
The purpose of the proposed Bill is to set up a public inquiry to investigate those recent events, namely, dealings worth £500,000 of someone else's money. If there has been a tax fiddle, I shall be as concerned as the hon. Gentleman, but for the life of me I cannot understand how the fiddle has taken place. I am much more concerned about the waste of £15 million at 1975 prices of taxpayers' money by the Labour Government of whom the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends were members. An inquiry should be called into that expensive white elephant.
Of course, that is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do. He would not wish to cause embarrassment to his right hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, South-East and Craigton. Perhaps he would not mind embarrassing one and not the other, but he would certainly not like to embarrass both right hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. David Myles: We do not know which one.
Mr. MacKay: The Public Accounts Committee considered the sale of land and was extremely critical of the then Labour Government for not buying the land before they built on it. However, that took place in the past and I turn to the present.
We shall know who has bought the land when they register the deeds in the register of sasines. We shall also know if and when the individual or company applies to the planning authority, which is the Argyll and Bute district council. Planning permission is specifically restricted to oil development and it will require a change of use provision. The other feature that makes it difficult to understand how there can have been a tax fiddle is that

151
planning permission will come to an end in 1985, when the village has to be razed to the ground unless permission has been granted to another user.
It seems that there are adequate safeguards in the original planning agreement. I know that the Argyll and Bute district council planning authority will keep a careful watch on all developments.
What I find strange—this came through towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech—is that Labour Members who are hostile to foreign investment in Scotland in another guise want the Scottish Development Agency to tramp the world to find foreign investment that will come to Scotland.
Some Labour Members even want Japanese car factories to come to Scotland, but they start screaming and squealing whenever it happens. They must make up their minds. To use the hon. Gentleman's choice phrase, they must come clean. Either foreign investment is a good thing, which we want to encourage, or it is a bad thing. Labour Members must be careful, when they start diatribing about it, that they do not drive away those who have legitimate foreign investment to make in Scotland for the benefit of working people who the Labour Party always tries to pretend it represents.
I ask the House to reject the motion and to join me in opposing it in the Division. I ask the House to do so for the sake of the hon. Gentleman. If we were to give the Bill a Second Reading, we would be pandering to and encouraging his serious addiction to cheap publicity gimmicks. It will do him a lot of good if my right hon. and hon. Friends join me in the Lobby. I suggest that the right hon. Members for Bristol, South-East and Craigton should consider joining me in opposing the Bill.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to ask whether you thought it was desirable that we should have Ten-Minute Bills for subjects of this kind. I do not blame the hon. Member for raising the matter, but he had opportunities to raise it and to request a public inquiry from the Minister. He could have sought to do that in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the feeling of the hon. Gentleman. I have had that feeling a thousand times since I became Speaker, because this is not the only Ten-Minute Bill in respect of which the opportunity has been taken to ventilate the deep feelings of an hon. Member.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 194.

Division No.59]

[3.52 pm

AYES

Allaun, Frank

Bradley, Tom

Alton, David

Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Buchan, Norman

Bamett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

Beith.A. J.

Campbell, Ian

Benn, RtHon A. Wedgwood

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

Canavan, Dennis

Bidwell, Sydney

Carmichael, Neil

Booth, RtHon Albert

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Boothroyd, MissBetty

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

Bottomley, RtHon A.(M'b'ro)

Cohen, Stanley

152

Cook, Robin F.

McElhone, Frank

Craigen, J.M.

McGuire, Michael(Ince)

Crowther, J.S.

McKay, Allen(Penistone)

Cryer, Bob

McKelvey, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McNally, Thomas

Davidson, Arthur

McNamara, Kevin

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

McWilliam, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Marks, Kenneth

Dixon, Donald

Marshall, DrEdmund(Goole,)

Dobson, Frank

Mason, RtHon Roy

Dormand, Jack

Maynard, MissJoan

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

Mikardo, Ian

Duffy, A. E. P.

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Dunn, James A.

Mitchell, R.C.(Sotonltchen)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Morris, RtHon A. (W'shawe)

Eastham, Ken

Morton, George

Edwards, R.(W'hampt'nSE)

Newens, Stanley

Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

O'Neill, Martin

English, Michael

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Palmer, Arthur

Evans, John (Newton)

Park, George

Ewing, Harry

Penhaligon, David

Flannery, Martin

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

Race, Reg

Foot, RtHon Michael

Richardson, Jo

Foster, Derek

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Foulkes, George

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Freud, Clement

Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Robertson, George

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)

George, Bruce

Rooker, J.W.

Golding, John

Sheerman, Barry

Graham, Ted

Short, Mrs Renée

Grant, George(Morpeth)

Silkin, RtHon J.(Deptford)

Grant, John (IslingtonC)

Smith, Cyrill (Rochdale)

Grimond, RtHon J.

Spriggs, Leslie

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

Steel, RtHon David

Harrison, RtHonWalter

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (WIsles)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Stoddart, David

Haynes, Frank

Stott, Roger

Heffer, EricS.

Strang, Gavin

HomeRobertson, John

Straw, Jack

Homewood, William

Summerskill, HonDrShirley

Hughes, Mark(Durham)

Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Torney, Tom

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

John, Brynmor

Watkins, David

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Welsh, Michael

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

White, Frank R.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Whitehead, Phillip

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Whitlock, William

Lambie, David

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Lamond, James

Winnick, David

Leighton, Ronald

Woodall, Alec

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Litherland, Robert

Lyon, Alexander(York)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Mr. Russell Kerr and

McCartney, Hugh

Mr. John Maxton.

McDonald, DrOonagh

NOES

Adley, Robert

Blackburn, John

Aitken, Jonathan

Body, Richard

Alison, Michael

Boscawen, HonRobert

Ancram, Michael

Bowden, Andrew

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

Boyson, DrRhodes

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brooke, Hon Peter

Bell, SirRonald

Brotherton, Michael

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Brown, M. (BriggandScun)

Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

Browne John(Winchester)

Berry, HonAnthony

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Bevan, DavidGilroy

Budgen, Nick

Biggs-Davison, John

Burden, SirFrederick

153

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln,)

Gray, Hamish

Carlisle, RtHon M.(R'c'n)

Greenway, Harry

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Grieve, Percy

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Chapman, Sydney

Grist, Ian

Churchill, W.S.

Grylls, Michael

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

Gummer, JohnSelwyn

Clegg, SirWalter

Hamilton, Hon A.

Cockeram, Eric

Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

Colvin, Michael

Hannam, John

Cope, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Hawkins, Paul

Corrie, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Costain, SirAlbert

Henderson, Barry

Crouch, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Holland, Philip(Carlton)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, RtHon D. (G'ldf'd)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Dover, Denshore

Hunt, David (Wirral)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Hurd, HonDouglas

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

Durant, Tony

Jenkin, RtHon Patrick

Dykes, Hugh

Jessel, Toby

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Eggar, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Elliott, SirWilliam

Kaberry, SirDonald

Emery, Peter

Kershaw, SirAnthony

Eyre, Reginald

Knight, MrsJill

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Knox, David

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lamont, Norman

Farr, John

Langford-Holt, SirJohn

Fisher, SirNigel

Latham, Michael

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

Lawrence, Ivan

Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles

LeMarchant, Spencer

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

Forman, Nigel

Lester Jim (Beeston)

Fox, Marcus

Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lyell, Nicholas

Glyn, DrAlan

Macfarlane, Neil

Goodhart, Philip

MacGregor, John

Goodlad, Alastair

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Gow, Ian

McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

Gower, SirRaymond

McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

Marland, Paul

154

Marten, Neil(Banbury)

Sainsbury, HonTimothy

Mather, Carol

Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

Mawby, Ray

Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

Mawhinney, DrBrian

Silvester, Fred

Meyer, SirAnthony

Sims, Roger

Miller, Hal(B'grove)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mills, Iain(Meriden)

Smith, Dudley

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Speed, Keith

Moate, Roger

Speller, Tony

Molyneaux, James

Sproat, Ian

Montgomery, Fergus

Squire, Robin

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stevens, Martin

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

Murphy, Christopher

Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

Myles, David

Stokes, John

Needham, Richard

StradlingThomas.J.

Nelson, Anthony

Tebbit, Norman

Neubert, Michael

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Newton, Tony

Thompson, Donald

Onslow, Cranley

Thornton, Malcolm

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Townend, John(Bridlington)

Osborn, John

Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Trotter, Neville

Patten, Christopher(Bath)

Vaughan, DrGerard

Pattie, Geoffrey

Viggers, Peter

Pawsey, James

Waddington, David

Pollock, Alexander

Wakeham, John

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

Waldegrave,HonWilliam

Prior, RtHon James

Waller, Gary

Proctor, K. Harvey

Ward,John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Warren,Kenneth

Rathbone,Tim

Watson,John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wells,John(Maidstone)

Renton,Tim

Wheeler,John

RhodesJames, Robert

Whitney,Raymond

Ridley,HonNicholas

Wiggin,Jerry

Rifkind,Malcolm

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Wolfson,Mark

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Tellers for the Noes:

Rossi, Hugh

Mr. Ian Lang and

Rost, Peter

Mr.RobertAtkins.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [7th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  Poverty
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.2 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's policies which are destroying the welfare state, eroding personal freedoms and increasing poverty among the unemployed, the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the working poor and families with young children.
  The motion is at least a damned sight better than the amendment. I have never seen such a wishy-washy amendment from any Government when faced with a major challenge on their policies. It contains at least one wild inaccuracy. The Government claim that their polices are the only ones which will achieve "real economic recovery" while at the same time
  "protecting the most vulnerable groups in society."
  The burden of our charge today will be that the Government are doing precisely the opposite. Indeed, the amendment should read
  "This House acknowledges that at a time of severe economic recession, the policies of her Majesty's Government are putting all the burdens on the backs of the poor.
  The most shameful thing about this period which history will record is precisely that at a time of continuing economic failure, largely as a result of their own policies, at a time when their policies are turning a short-term cyclical recession into a long-term industrial decline, at a time when, largely and specifically as a result of their own dogmas, we have the most appalling unemployment figures that most of us have known in our lifetime, the Government should choose to slash the incomes, curtail the rights and throw the greatest burden upon the backs of the poorest and weakest in our society—the sick, elderly and unemployed.
  And it is even more shameful because it takes place against a background of two Budgets. The first gave 37 per cent. of the tax handouts—about £1½ million—to the richest 7 per cent. of the community. The second Budget gave 14 per cent. of the entire handout to the richest 2 per cent. of the community. As if to add philosophical salt to the wound, all of that has been done in the sacred name of freedom and the concept of rolling back the boundaries of the State. That has come from a Government who possess a Secretary of State for the Environment whose every action is invading and destroying local democracy, forcing policies on rents and rates which the community does not want and imposing sharp incomes policies on our poorest public sector workers.
  Like other hon. Members who took part in Question Time today, I saw the Prime Minister during her television broadcast on Sunday. She was at her most obsessive. There was not a faint glimmer of doubt that she could be wrong. She seemed to regard it as a false kindness to show compassion or to intervene. I understand that her favourite parable is that of the Good Samaritan. I suspect that had
  156
  she been the Good Samaritan, out of kindness and in the best Friedmanite doctrine she would have allowed the Levite to die and then proceed to cut his death grant.
  All this has been done in the name of freedom. There are no freedoms where there is no choice, and for millions of people in our community there is now no choice. Nor are there freedoms without rights, and the Government are replacing rights with means tests. The right to work has been replaced by the appalling numbers who more and more are going on to supplementary, and, therefore, means-tested, benefits.
  Both the right hon. Lady and the Secretary of State have recently been exalting the principle of charities and of voluntarism in our society. What they do not understand is that the voluntary organisations—and we welcome voluntary work in the community—can work only, and certainly work best, when they recognise that there is a wider family and community. Together they make up the community of the nation which creates the framework in which voluntarism can work best. The wider national framework is necessary.
  That is shown, if it needs to be shown, by the strong opposition to virtually every step which the Government have taken by virtually everybody working in the voluntary sector. These people recognise how their voluntarism can best work even if the Government cannot. Whether in relation to pensioners, the unemployed, children, those concerned with families and, indeed, within the family itself, organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group or the National Council for One Parent Families have all opposed the Government, and on all the aspects that I mention they are facing difficulties because of Government actions.
  What do the voluntary bodies say about it? I should like to quote what some of them have said. The National Council for One Parent Families says this about a Government who are supposedly devoted to voluntarism:
  "Government policies are devastating and demoralising one parent families. Local authorities need special help to cope with these growing numbers. But cuts in resources means less housing for the homeless, less day care for those in work and worse social services for those in trouble. Our belief that it had a commitment to one parent families is now wearing a bit thin."
  I take another group—the Disability Alliance. More in sorrow than in anger, it says:
  "The Conservatives came to power with an impressive record of promises"—
  indeed they did—
  "to chronically sick and disabled people. People with disabilities were left in no doubt that their needs would be given a special priority by the new administration. These expectations have not been fulfilled. A year after taking office, the Government appears to have forgotten its assurances to people with disabilities."
  The same points were made by Help the Aged:
  "Since the elderly and particularly the frail elderly make the greatest demands on our social services, it is no wonder that they should be among those most affected by the current wave of cuts in central and local government expenditure. There are still too few sheltered housing schemes. Part-three accommodation is extremely expensive and is all too often more of an institution than a home. Now, even those essential services are being cut."
  In that sacred document "The Right Approach"—the Tory Government's textbook—they made a promise under the heading "The welfare of the community". It mentioned social security and said that our first priority must be to look after the retired, the disabled, the sick and the very poor. About that, the Child Poverty Action Group said:
  "Behind all the fine words about 'protecting the needy', the Government has introduced a Budget which singles out social

  157
  security claimants and families with children to bear the main burden of the sacrifices required by its economic policies, and which through a policy of means-testing divides the poor from the rest of society."
  The former chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Mr. David Donnison, said that a new set of priorities was required urgently if the casualties were not to mount still further.
  What was the Secretary of State's view? He said:
  "We believe that it is the duty of the strong to help the weak"—
  Good. He continued:
  "and that is why we seek to help the most vulnerable in our society. These words are not just pious platitudes: look at the record."
  We shall take the right hon. Gentleman at his word and we shall look at the record. Let us go through the list in "The Right Approach". What have the Government done about the retired? They have ended the link with earnings or prices, whichever is the higher. As a result, if pensions had been uprated in line with the earnings index for the year ended November 1980, a pension for a single person would have been £28·10 and for a married couple £44·90. As a result of the Government's action single pensioners lost by 95p a week and married couples lost by £1·45.
  If we were to pursue that to when linkage to earnings started, we should find that married couples would have been £3·50 better off than they are today. That is the measure of the Government's cut. The Government have tried to make a virtue of protecting pensioners from inflation. However, pensioners will never become better off while such arrangements continue. Not only has there been an immediate cut; as a result of the policy no pensioner can become better off. A person's pension is in line with inflation, but it will not improve on the rate of inflation.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood a very complicated provision in the Social Security Act 1975, as amended. The provision places a floor under the uprating. It is open to any Government—we have repeatedly given this pledge—to ensure that as and when the prosperity of the nation improves pensioners will share in it. [Interruption.] It has happened before and I have little doubt that it will happen again.
  Mr. Buchan: I expected that intervention. I repeat that the policy means that pensioners can never become better off.
  With reference to the Social Security Bill the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "In the Social Security Bill we give the guarantee that pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries will be at the very least protected against rises in prices."
  Note the phrase "at the very least". What has happened? That phrase has now become "at the very best". The Government propose to claw back the 1 per cent. due to old-age pensioners—[Interruption.] Do the Government intend to drop that Bill? The Government propose to claw back the 1 per cent. and they complained about the earlier "over-provision." What a term! The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they would claw back the 1 per cent. that resulted from the Government's misunderstanding of the inflation rate.
  The Government say that pensioners have been over-provided for. That clawback must not be allowed to happen. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees
  158
  with me. However, we have been promised a squalid little clawback Bill. Nothing quite so mean has yet been proposed by the Government. I almost prefer their major crimes to that little bit of vindictive meanness. I want a guarantee. Will the clawback end there? I understand that in Cabinet it was a close-run thing whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to break that pledge. We are told that it is a very leaky Cabinet. The Prime Minister has told us that it is very leaky. She sacked the most distinguished and stylish of all its members to bear out that the leaks were true. By definition, a leak does not matter if it is untrue. The Prime Minister was on the verge of going back on that pledge. We are entitled to ask about, and have evidence and proof of, the Government's intentions as regards sticking to that mean concept. We could get confirmation of that today.
  The next group that "The Right Approach" claimed to support was the disabled. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was the former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, tabled a wide-ranging series of questions to find out what new initiatives the Government had in mind to mark the International Year of Disabled People, and at what cost. I have looked through the answers from nearly a score of Ministers. Every one made clear that there would be virtually no new extra expenditure to mark the IYDP.
  We welcome the new Minister for Social Security, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), to the Front Bench. Like me, he is a newcomer and I wish him luck. I hope that he will have something to say on this subject. During Question Time the hon. Gentleman did not give much evidence that he had any intention—[Interruption.] I agree; he was very good. He got away with it. That is the definition of "very good" among Conservative Members. However, not a single pledge was given about further expenditure for the disabled. If that is good, he was very successful. The hon. Gentleman got away with his baptism. He will not get away for long if the Secretary of State does not encourage him to put some money where his mouth is.
  The Government are good about promises. When the Conservative Party was in Opposition its members spent their time attacking every one of our provisions for the disabled as inadequate. No one in this party believes that we have done sufficient for the disabled. However, we would say that we at least made a start. We appointed a Minister and spent over £1,100 million on the chronically sick and disabled. We introduced new types of cash benefits. It is not enough, but it is a start. But every time a new benefit was announced someone denounced it as insufficient and called for more. Who was that? It was the right hon. Gentleman. In the IYDP he has an opportunity to go down in history, yet not one substantial benefit has been proposed to mark the occasion.
  Perhaps alone in the world, Britain has not responded and has not brought forward any provision. The right hon. Gentleman is turning the International Year of Disabled People into a kind of sick joke. It is beginning to fray the nerves of those in voluntary work. In yesterday's edition of The Times an article referred to Colin Low, who is a blind lecturer in law. He was invited to the shindig at No. 10 to mark the glorious year of the disabled. He is president of the National Federation of the Blind. However, he will not go to the reception. He said that the

  159
  reception at No. 10 Downing Street was an "obscene irrelevance" compared with what has been done for the disabled. Later on, The Times states:
  "Mr. Hugh Rossi who has replaced Reg Prentice as Minister for the Disabled, told Professor Townsend he regretted Mr. Prentice's publicly stated view that disabled people should share cuts in public expenditure."
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell that not only to Professor Townsend but to hon. Members. I hope that he will give us some evidence of his intentions.
  The next on the list is the sick. What have they done to bear out the fine words in "The Right Approach"? The first thing that the Government did was to cut sickness benefit by 5 per cent. below the inflation rate. It was cut by 5 per cent. below the amount that the sick could reasonably have expected. The Government said that they would stick to their pledge of inflation-proofing pensions—although they would cut back any little bits that went over the top—but they have not done that for sickness. That means a real and direct loss, per week, of 85p for a single person and £1·49 for a married couple. That is the first evidence of the Government's attitude towards the sick. The earnings-related supplement has been reduced this month. It is to be abolished next year. The figures for 1978–79, the latest that I have been able to obtain, show that the average man earning £95 could have claimed a supplement of £14·49. The new measures taken by the Government mean that there will be a drop from £14·49 to £11, a loss of about £3·50, in the earnings-related supplement of a newly sick man.
  The Government have changed the rule in relation to this complicated aspect. The new Minister will discover that this is a complex field. It takes a long time to find a way through. I do not wish to spend too long on some of the details. However, the change in the rules about the linking of periods of interruption of employment from 13 weeks to eight weeks has two clear effects. First, it will become more difficult to qualify for the invalidity benefit. Secondly, as the Disability Alliance points out, these changes will create an additional deterrent to work for the chronically sick and disabled. Yet so much is claimed to have been done by the Government in the name of incentives.
  The long-term sick have been struck a double blow. Like pensioners, their benefit is no longer to be related to earnings or prices, whichever is higher. Unbelievably, any increase in the invalidity pension will be 5 per cent. below estimated inflation. The loss for a single person receiving invalidity pension benefit is £1·15 and for a married couple £1·85. For a family, the figure is £3·35. That indicates the extent of the Conservative Party's devotion to family policy.
  Prescription charges are up by 500 per cent. In April 1979 the charge was 20p. It is now £1. The National Health Service was one of the two basic planks of the Welfare State to which all Governments were pledged. The Opposition recognise that all charges are bad. I would deplore it if what has happened were done by a Labour Government. Labour has done nothing to compare with what has happened now. All charges are bad, but these are prohibitive, the basic concept now being introduced for financing the NHS is, on the one hand, charges at this level and, on the other, the introduction, presumably, of one-armed bandits and lotteries. Those most outraged by this
  160
  development are the very charities and voluntary organisations that the Government say they exist to defend and enhance. The charities and voluntary organisations see their support and income disappearing as a result of this policy. It shows the decline that has occurred since Beveridge and Nye Bevan.
  Community care has commented on the shift to employer liability, euphemistically called "income during initial sickness", which puts the onus on the employer instead of the Government for the first eight weeks of sickness. It says
  "Mrs. Thatcher and her colleagues have developed a remarkable talent for uniting the most motley groupings in opposition to their policies. When else, for example, have the Child Poverty Action Group, employers' associations, civil servants, Help the Aged, the Labour Party"—
  we are in good company—
  "and the British Medical Association, the trades unions and a chunk of the insurance business condemned a policy as to a man?"
  The policy is rejected virtually by every organisation, whether an employers' organisation or a supportive voluntary organisation. The Engineering Employers' Federation says:
  The EEF whose members employ some 2 million people will lead a major attack on the Government's proposals for payment of sick pay by employers when Parliament reassembles."
  I welcome allies from any direction, We have to ask whether the Government, in the face of such opposition, intend to go ahead with the proposals. We saw some sign, under pressure, of a watering down of the proposals in December. Why cannot the Government go the whole way and withdraw them? Among those affected will be the small business man, the apple of the Tories' eye. What a disincentive this gives the small business man to employ more labour.
  I have left the unemployed until last, for the simple reason that they did not appear in the list in "The Right Approach". It did not talk of the unemployed among those to be looked after. There are 2½ million people—one in 10—out of a job. I have a hunch that the Government think that this is the fault of the unemployed themselves. They talk as though that were the case. The Prime Minister thinks that if people get the sack they should go and look for work. The Prime Minister's message for the unemployed is "Have sack, will travel". We see the effects of the Government's attitude on the morale of the unemployed. One of the unemployed, quoted in a recent publication, said:
  "The public have a tendency to blame us for being unemployed … they think that we are lazy… I used to have the same view when I was employed… they should have a taste of it themselves".
  A man made unemployed at Consett said:
  "I have looked for jobs almost every day since I was made redundant, but I do not have much of a chance. I suppose if I am honest I sometimes think I'll not work again. And I am 46."
  This shows the attitudes of despair that the Government have inculcated with their short, sharp, brutish campaign against so-called scroungers.
  The Government do not like the unemployed—certainly not in practice. Unemployment benefit has gone up by 5 per cent. less than the rate of inflation. Earnings-related supplement has been reduced this month and will be abolished next year. That supplement, it should be remembered, is about £8.80 a week on average. The long-term supplementary benefit will be available to all after one year—we can say in mitigation that the Opposition

  161
  welcome this—except for the unemployed. Why are they singled out? This will make a difference to them of £8.85 in the case of a married couple.
  The Government, faced by mounting unemployment, must reconsider their decision to exclude the long-term unemployed from eligibility for the enhanced long-term rate of supplementary benefit. Even worse, more than half the unemployed do not even receive unemployment benefit. There are 780,000 on unemployment benefit only, 160,000 on unemployment benefit plus supplementary benefit, and over 600,000 on supplementary benefit only. And others get nothing. These figures are increasing as the number of long-term unemployed approaches the 500,000 mark. The associated poverty increases with the cutting of the unemployment benefit as more are pushed on to supplementary benefit. The Government's estimate last year was that another 110,000 would be put on supplementary benefit. Why have the unemployed been made to suffer this shabby treatment? Is it the cost? Or is it the obsession with the "Why work"? and the scroungers syndrome?
  The Supplementary Benefits Commission, in its annual report, said:
  "Incentives to work can only be effective if there are opportunities to work. To increase incentives while unemployment accelerates upwards is like trying to encourage somebody to jump into a swimming pool while the water is being drained out."
  Those who suffer most from Government policy are those like the unemployed, who are having to bear the brunt of such policies.
  I come now to the bull point—families. The Prime Minister has said "We are the party of the family." In a speech to the WRVS, she declared
  "Not only is the family the most important means through which we show our care for others, it is the place where each generation learns its responsibilities towards the rest of society".
  The crucial factor is child benefit. Child benefit shows a miserable increase below the galloping inflation that we face. It is only up 75p from last year—a loss in real terms of nearly 50p a child a week. The benefit should be at least £5…20. Most people in the child benefit sphere would recognise that even this amount is inadequate. I wish that the Government would put the money where its family mouth is and restore what has been lost by the cut.
  We are told that those suffering poverty as a result of these policies are not finding the same treatment in the offices. More people are being turned down for lump sum grants or section 30 miscellaneous discretionary payments. The Child Poverty Action Group reports a big drop in the number of claimants asking for these grants for clothes and shoes because they appear to be told flatly that the law says "No", again they say, without any attempt properly to assess whether or not a discretionary payment should be made. They are finding case after case where people on other benefits living just above the supplementary benefit level are clearly being hurt where the new rule disqualifies them from lump sum payments. These reports are very disturbing and I am getting them from many hon. Members. I hope that the Minister will make a report shortly on the operation of this new scheme.
  We are concerned also about the inadequacy of the scale rates. There is a whole list of things that require to be financed out of the scale rates—food, household fuel, the purchase, cleaning, repair and replacement of clothing and footwear, travel costs, weekly laundry costs, miscellaneous household expenses, and so on. All these
  162
  have to be covered by the new scale rates that have been introduced. We have sought to have these costed, but how much money is coming for this enormous list of needs? My hon. friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services
  "what costings his Department has made of the items listed in paragraph 4(1) of the Supplementary Benefits (Requirements) Regulations 1980."
  The new Minister of State replied:
  "None. Successive Governments have considered it right that beneficiaries should have the freedom to decide for themselves how to allocate the resources on those items,".—[Official Report, 23 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 252.]
  Freedom to decide whether to apply for a pair of shoes or a blanket—what kind of freedom is this? We have to get the costings, otherwise we do not know if they are adequate. What a picture of Tory freedom that gives. The level of these benefits should be such that the beneficiaries could have an income which enables them fully to participate in the life of the community. All of us accept that, I should have thought. I wish they would give us the costings to ensure that it happens. Someone asked me "Could you live on it?" I am pretty sure that the poor cannot and I think that the family service unit, for example, can give example after example of how the poor are unable to live on the new kind of views that are coming through as a result of these policies.
  The fate of the low-paid is little better. In the first place, family income supplement applies to only about 90,000 families. Incidentally, the Government have still not removed the discrimination against women. A woman who is the earner in a FIS-supported family does not and will not benefit until November 1983, when the Government will be forced to pay this by Common Market regulations. I never thought that the Common Market regulations were necessary to develop a sense of compassion in any British Government. Apparently that is the case with this Government. They are leaving it right to the last syllable of recorded time before they bring it in.
  The combination of family income supplement and the tax proposals have deepened, sharpened and widened the poverty trap. For example, it means that a couple with two children on £55 a week would need to get a wage increase of over £20 per week in order to make them better off. A couple with four children earning £55 per week would need to get a wage increase of about £30 to £40 a week in order to escape from the vicious poverty trap. It is Government tax policy along with the benefits policy which has created this.
  It does not need me to say this. We have a better witness here. "One is bound to ask, what can be more absurd? What can one think of a tax system under which someone who is so poor that he is entitled to draw a means-tested benefit finds himself paying tax to contribute towards the cost of it?" The right hon. Gentleman himself said that. His Government have made it worse. We hope to hear him say something about that today.
  The truth is that the Government have created a kind of caste in our society in which the people in it have no means of gaining either independence or freedom, or a sense of respect because they feel trapped perpetually in a new permanently means-tested life in which virtually no action they can take can improve their condition. That is what poverty is about, and that is what freedom is about.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: How can the hon. Gentleman make such cheap points when his Government were operating the same FIS system and even higher rates of income tax than this Government?
  Mr. Buchan: What this Government did was to introduce a Budget which among other things gave a hefty dollop to the rich at the top and abolished the lower income tax level at the bottom. If the Government want to find an answer to that charge that is one means of doing it. Secondly, they can do it by pushing up the threshold at which tax starts to be paid. This is the absurdity which the right hon. Gentleman talked about and which they have shied away from. The poor are getting poorer as well as there being more of them.
  Unemployment and sickness benefit levels are now at their lowest in real terms since 1971. The benefit income when sick or unemployed for a married couple with two children was down from 67 per cent. in 1977 to 57 per cent. in 1980 as compared with average male earnings, and similarly with the retirement pension. Again, it is lower.
  If the poor are getting poorer, it is also true that the poor pay more, because the necessities of life weigh much more heavily on a poor person's income. Electricity prices have gone up through Government action. Gas prices have gone up through Government action. Yet the Government have abolished the electricity discount scheme. That gave help to about 4 million poor consumers. That has been abolished and replaced by the narrow, small means-tested scheme for 350,000 people. We see the result. Every hon. Member who has constituents coming to his surgery sees the result in increasing disconnections and now by the new development of the installation of load limiters. We want to get something done about that.
  Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) is bringing in a Bill on this subject. Now is the opportunity for the Government to show their evidence of intention by supporting that Bill.
  There is one point on which I should like to get a reply. In Northern Ireland fuel costs are on average 50 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. This was understood, and a special allowance was made for it. That allowance has been abolished. It means about an extra charge of £2·50 per family in Northern Ireland. What a piece of meanness it is to apply that to that country of all countries with its present level of unemployment.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that gas prices in Northern Ireland are three times what they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Buchan: As I said, I was averaging the figure, and the total fuel costs are about 50 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. But I am grateful for the intervention.
  All this has been in the name of rolling back the boundaries of the State. We have a Government who have increased poverty among council tenants and slashed the freedom of local authorities at a stroke on rent and rates. If there is one clear way of alleviating the worst of this new kind of poverty, it must be through an increase in child benefits.
  I turn to the man who gave the intellectual impetus to this new brutalism of the modern Tory Party—the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). If hon. Members
  164
  remember, it was his campaign against scroungers that gave the Tories the basis for much of their election campaign and gave them the push within the country to dare to get away with the policies that they have. What does this intellectual from the North tell us about child benefits? This is what the hon. Member said in an article about two weeks ago in the Glasgow Herald. I may say that he shares this column with me; there are four of us who do this column every month, so there is always one good column in the month. I regret to say that I cannot read my own to the House. The hon. Gentleman says this:
  "Why doesn't the Government abolish child benefits?"
  There is a good question.
  "It would save about £3,000 million a year. To put it in perspective, that is about the same as we got from North Sea oil last year. This should make a lot of people think. Money from North Sea oil is supposed to be a magic part our national salvation. Yet here we are, chucking almost the same amount away on child benefits …
  Furthermore, why should the taxpayer fork out money to people just because they have children? I reckon that it's up to parents to work out how many children they want and can afford.
  Just think what we could do with that £3,000 million. We could greatly cut income tax, without increasing inflation … In that way, we could encourage people to work hard instead of just encouraging them to have children."
  This is the man who laid the intellectual basis for this Government's policy. We would like to get an answer.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Intellectual by the hon. Gentleman's standards.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) agree with it?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course not.
  Mr. Buchan: The Government, having won an election on the promise of tax cuts—by God, we have seen the result of that—having won a campaign by arousing some of the worst attitudes among some of our people in relation to scroungers, have felt that they now have to fulfil those promises, and we have had the launching of this great new fraud campaign.
  The Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—said:
  "If some people are able, through fraud and fiddling, to get money to which they are not entitled, it means there is less for those whose need is genuine".
  We say "Amen" to that. Certainly some people are capable of fraud and fiddling. We have had some good examples of fiddling, including the Vesteys. But the only Vesteys that the Government are concerned about are the street-corner Vesteys. That is the sort of fiddling that they are concerned about. We do not approve of scroungers at either end of the spectrum.
  On 13 February the previous Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice)— announced the appointment of 1,050 additional staff to work on fraud and abuse. The aim was to save £50 million a year. How are they getting on? Have they reached the £50 million, or is it their failure to reach it that gives rise to the new guidelines for fraud inspectors? Is it tougher than they thought? How will they interpret the latest instructions to staff?
  We have seen leaked in New Society and other newspapers something of the horrors of the new fraud guidelines that have been issued in order to try to implement the new campaign. I have asked that they be

  165
  published. Only today I received a reply from the Secretary of State. I have not had time to digest it fully, but it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to publish the guidelines. I wonder why. Nevertheless, for the sake of greater accuracy I thought that it would be wise to have a copy with me.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before the hon. Gentleman reads the document to the House will he make it clear that in my letter to him I made it clear that the system that he is about to describe is that operated by his predecessors for many years in Manchester? It was found to work and is now being extended to other parts of the country.
  Mr. Buchan: No, I am dealing with the June 1980 amendments to the fraud investors' guide. The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House.
  Mr. Rooker: That is twice today.
  Mr. Buchan: There are some interesting bits of reading in the document. One struck me especially. An indication is given of cases in which staff should not proceed to prosecution, and it is suggested that there should not be prosecution if
  "The offender is of such low mentality that the court might be more sympathetic towards him than towards the Department".
  That is not suggesting that staff should refuse to proceed to prosecution because the person concerned is of low mentality and should be in care. It is not suggesting a sympathetic approach to that person. It merely suggests that there should be no prosecution, because the court might take a more sympathetic view towards him than would the Department. In other words, a British court of justice would be more sympathetic than the DHSS. That is a terrifying concept.
  The Department's attitude denies a great deal of natural justice and extends and presses even more the question of humiliating investigations. And all in the name of cost-effectiveness. It is not the seriousness of the suspected offence but the cost-effectiveness that will be derived if it is prosecuted that is taken into account. We on the Opposition Benches believe injustice as well as equality.
  Even worse are some of the internal documents. Those who are most horrified by the proposals are the social security officers themselves. The union involved is also upset, because it finds the process distasteful. I have seen some internal documents. We are told that pressure is applied to persuade people to drop their claims. A man meeting officials in those circumstances would not find it difficult to experience the sort of guilt that the Government have inculcated with their talk of scroungers, and might drop his claim under such investigation. I have also seen, from an unnamed area, other sorts of pressure. I have a document announcing good news and bad news. It states:
  "I was pleased to announce our success in the level of savings we have achieved since the beginning of the year."
  It goes on to say that the news for November last year was not so good:
  "Our results for that period indicate that we only just achieved our target".
  They have targets for savings on fraud! It is like telling a police station that it should have a target for the number of prosecutions that it brings. There is no requirement of justice involved. The document continues:
  "results fluctuate from month to month and the most recent result is not typical. I would like …to reinforce what I said … that we cannot rest on our laurels".
  What sort of pressure is that to bring on the fraud special investigators who are trying to establish justice? It is a
  166
  terrible document. The Government's new guidelines should be withdrawn, and I should like a public pledge from the Secretary of State today that he will withdraw them. If he will not, they should be published, so that all involved can examine them.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will my hon. Friend also ask the Secretary of State why, if the guidelines are not new, members of the DHSS staff and union officials have been to see me on a number of occasions at my advice bureaux complaining about what management is requiring them to do? They tell me that they are being required to bully people out of benefits to which they are entitled.
  Will the Secretary of State also explain why the long-term unemployed in Merseyside are being deprived of benefits because they are accused of not being enthusiastic enough about looking for work? It is not that they are turning down jobs; they are told that they are not enthusiastic enough in looking for work. That is a new concept and, given the unemployment that the Government have created in Merseyside, it is an insult.
  Mr. Buchan: That intervention is typical of many things that I have been told privately by hon. Members. We hope that we will get an answer from the Secretary of State, but the best answer would be for him to repudiate the document.
  There are other scroungers. The Vesteys were mentioned, and they are good examples. Let us also consider the position of those working under wages councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked about the number of firms not paying the full amount established by law through wages councils and he was told:
  "Underpayment of wages including holiday pay, was found at 10,969 establishments during 1979".—[Official Report, 12 January 1980; Vol. 996, c. 511.]
  That is a lot of scroungers and a lot of money, but there is no special fraud squad to investigate those firms. The Wages Inspectorate still employs 270 civil servants, compared with the thousands pursuing—and we know the disgraceful ways in which they sometimes have to do their work—social security frauds.
  Let us consider taxation. The Inland Revenue officers tell us:
  "vast sums in excess of £3,000 million are not being collected".
  There is a source of scrounging, fiddling and fraud—£3,000 million; not the £50 million with which the Government are obsessed. They are more concerned with the street-corner Vesteys than with the real Vesteys, and the millions of pounds that we lose because of them.
  Another matter that should be considered is the take-up of benefits. I wish that the Government spent as much energy on ensuring that people take up their benefits as they do in pursuing fraud. We were told today that unclaimed supplementary benefits total £400 million. Among the poorest of all, the single-parent families, there is a take-up of only 60 per cent. of benefits. Why do not the Government devote even a modicum of the energy used on fraud investigations to encourage the take-up of necessary benefits to which people are entitled as of right? That would serve the cause of justice and freedom better than does the Government's new tawdry document.
  We have seen how the Government responded to the Strathclyde regional council, which attempted to encourage the take-up of benefits. The Government should

  167
  have been the first to support it, but they attacked the council's efforts as being a political gimmick. The Undersecretary said:
  "I objected to this crude exercise".
  In fact, it was merely an exercise to allow people to obtain their rights.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that:
  "Right at the heart of our Tory philosophy lies the principle of 'One Nation'."
  He went on to say that when Disraeli spoke about one nation he meant not some of the people but all of the people. He then said:
  "that is the ideal which has inspired the approach of successive Conservative Governments from his time forward. It is certainly the ideal which inspires the present Government under Margaret Thatcher."
  However, the truth is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that:
  "If general living standards are rising, presumably society can afford to be more generous to the poor."
  Two things are wrong with that statement. One is the curious concept of the poor not being part of society and the second is the concept that we can do our duties by the poor only during a period of growth and increasing public expenditure. We reject both propositions. The poor are a part of our society. We shall not stand aside and see them made a separate caste in this way. They have rights, as everyone else does, and we are here to defend them. There is no freedom when that sort of concept develops. The safety net concept of this Government is now sagging so much that people who fall from the trapeze will probably fall on to the floor.
  The debate on the Loyal Address two years ago was marked by an interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in which he quoted Professor Tawney, who said:
  "It is assumed by the privileged classes that when the State holds its hand what remains as a result of its inaction is liberty. In reality, what remains for the mass of mankind is tyranny".
  The right hon. Member then added:
  "—the tyranny of private wealth and private power, but tyranny nevertheless."—[Official Report, 16 May 1979; Vol. 967, c.228.]
  In December, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said:
  "The truth is that it is not greater equality that will end poverty."
  He said that only growth will end poverty. He then went on to attack Peter Townsend. He said:
  "The Townsend approach, so beloved of the left, simply feeds the politics of envy—which has done more to sour human relations than almost any other single influence."
  I compare that with his written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who asked for the introduction of a comprehensive disability income. He said that:
  "there is no prospect of any new benefits until the economy has improved. It would, therefore, be premature to produced plans for improvements in this area."—[Official Report, 12 January 1981; Vol.996, c. 489.]
  Therefore, it is no good the disabled being envious. They will not benefit much from their envy, even in this International Year of Disabled People.
  Taking the Government's Budgets over the last two years and the social policies which they have developed, they have smashed the consensus that started from Beveridge with the Welfare State—the consensus of
  168
  security against want without a means test. Alongside the bucket-shop economics that they have been introducing they have been bringing back the ethics of the workhouse.
  David Donnison, the previous chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, writing in New Society, two weeks ago, said:
  "The older paternalistic brand of Toryism seemed to have died. After May 1979, as social security minister, Reg Prentice made the new philosophy brutally clear; 'If you believe economic salvation can only be achieved by rewarding success and the national income is not increasing, then you have no alternative but to make the unsuccessful poorer.'"
  The Government's policies have been mean, petty, squalid and meretricious.
  The Industrial Law Journal said it better than any of us in the issue of December 1980:
  "For many people, lawyers and non-lawyers, the most startling feature of the legislation under discussion"—
  —the two social security Bills
  "is that at a time of acute unemployment, a phenomenon now recognised to be caused principally by external economic factors rather than individual weakness, the Government has decided to reduce levels of benefit and thus the standard of living of the poor."
  The life of this Government has been nasty and brutish. It is our job also to make it as short as possible. When we come back into power, I give the pledge that no matter what difficulties we face—there will be plenty of difficulties when we take over—and left with the mess of the Conservative Party, our solutions will not be at the expense of the poor. When we are asked if we are our brother's keeper we shall reply, with Robert Blatchford, with a resounding "Yes". That is the message which I give to the right hon. Gentleman.
  4.56 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House acknowledges that at a time of severe economic recession, the policies of Her Majesty's Government offer the only effective way to real economic recovery, the creation of lasting jobs and a decent standard of living for all the people of this country while at the same time protecting the most vulnerable groups in society.".
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench in a major debate on social services. If the length of his speech is any guide, he should earn a place by right in the Shadow Cabinet. It is difficult to know what importance the Opposition attach to social security. When the Leader of the Opposition appointed his Shadow Cabinet it seemed curious that social security, which is by far the highest spending programme, should not have entitled the hon. Member to a place in that body.
  One quality shone through the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was the insistence, in virtually every sentence that he uttered, on more public spending, without giving the slightest indication of where that money would come from.
  I shall turn now to the case that the hon. Gentleman made. I hope that he will excuse me if I set it out simply, but, I hope, fairly, in my own words, without the accompanying hyperbole to which he treated the House.
  The Government are accused of rejecting the post-war consensus on social welfare. What is more, the Opposition's argument continues, the Government's monetarist policies—which the Labour Party denounces

  169
  the more enthusiastically now that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is no longer Shadow Chancellor—have led to an increase in unemployment. They go on to say that only the election of a Labour Government—with or without the support of the Gang of 13, or however many it was at the last count—can save our social services by returning to first principles on redistribution and the pursuit of equality. They argue that only by adopting Socialist economic policies, whatever they may be, will we get out of the rut of the mixed economy and create more resources and more jobs.
  I should like to deal with each of those propositions in turn and at the end of my speech to say a few words about the future of the Welfare State.
  The world did not begin in May 1979, nor did Britain's problems. We inherited an economy in steep decline, no longer able to sustain the standards of welfare provision enjoyed in other countries—countries which had in earlier decades lagged behind us.
  I do not blame the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West or my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), for that. The fault lies in our economic performance over the past two decades or more—years of low growth, rising inflation, crawling productivity and lost markets.
  Mr. David Ennals Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North) rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I was forgiving the right hon. Gentleman—I was not blaming him. I shall not give way at the moment.
  We also inherited from the previous Administration public expenditure plans which bore not the remotest relation to reality. We would have needed a miracle of Old Testament qualities in our economy to pay for them. To have gone ahead with those programmes as we inherited them would have meant higher inflation, higher taxes, higher borrowing and a swift return of the men from the IMF. It was inevitable, therefore, that we should review those spending plans. Since social security accounts for about a quarter of all public expenditure and is the largest sector of spending—£20,000 million a year—it was equally inevitable that some of the savings would have to come from that programme.
  The hon. Gentleman dwelt on the savings with a loving dissection. I wish to put them into perspective before I remind the House of the priorities that we have set ourselves within the financial constraints—constraints, moreover, by which any Government in our position would have been bound.
  First, other countries with far better economic records than ours have had to take similar measures in the face of the world recession. I shall mention only a few. Germany and the Netherlands have trimmed their uprating provisions. Denmark has done the same, and has also had to cut back on family allowances. Canada has reduced the level of income replacement for illness, injury and pregnancy. The Norwegians are studying our experience to help them in their review of social security. The story could be repeated for country after country. Are we really to believe that the Labour Party has discovered a secret formula that will protect us from the economic conditions affecting all our friends and competitors?
  Sir Frederick Burden: What about Afghanistan?
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend appears to be suggesting that Afghanistan may give us the answer.
  The motion talks of destroying the Welfare State, which is absurd. By itself, the 1980 uprating of benefits added about 10 times as much to the cost of the social security budget as last year's cuts took away from it. That point seems to have escaped the Labour Party. In a full year, the uprating added over £3,000 million to our budget. The savings amount to about £270 million in benefits in 1981–82, rising to about £480 million in 1982–83. I do not pretend that those savings are negligible, but they mean that around 98 per cent. of the social security budget remains intact.
  The social security budget has grown in real terms by £7,000 million over the past 10 years. The cost now amounts to about £1,000 for each household in the land. Even after our savings the total social security programme will still be rising in 1981–82 in real terms. With those figures in mind, I find it astonishing that any responsible party can put its name to a motion that talks about destroying the Welfare State.
  Any Government in our position would have had to cut spending, unless we were simply to slash capital investment, which was what the Labour Government did, with all the consequent damage to the private sector and to the long-term strength of the economy. We had to tackle revenue spending. Given the huge growth of the social services budget over the past decade, to have exempted it from making any contribution to retrenchment would have imposed disproportionate cuts elsewhere. No Minister in my Department relishes having to tell the elderly and others in need of help and support that we cannot afford to do as much for them as they had hoped or as we would have wished. It is a measure of the Government's resolution to tackle our problems that we have been prepared to take the decisions and to argue them out in the House and in the country.
  Of course we should like to have more resources to help all the disadvantaged groups in our society, but until the economy is restored to health and we are creating the wealth we cannot spend it. What we must do, and are doing, is to ensure that those in the greatest need are helped and protected as far as we are able. Let me therefore spell out as clearly as I can the five priorities that we have held before us in tackling poverty and preserving the fabric of our welfare services.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman is asking the poor and disabled to make sacrifices. What sacrifices are he and others on similar incomes making to get our economy right?
  Mr. Jenkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, those are matters on which Parliament has voted. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had voted against them.
  First, as we promised, we have maintained the value of pensions in line with prices. In cash terms, the pension for married couples is now nearly 40 per cent. higher than it was when we took office. Most benefits for the disabled have been fully protected against inflation. Mobility allowance has been increased ahead of inflation, and we have brought 30,000 of the older disabled into the mobility allowance earlier than was orignally planned. We have fully price-protected the safety net—the supplementary allowance level below which none shall fall.
  Secondly, we have gone further than our manifesto pledge to the 900,000 one-parent families in the country.

  171
  It is estimated that the number of one- parent families has increased in the past decade so that today about one in every eight families with children depends on a single parent. It is recognised on both sides that single-parent families face severe problems. That is why we have increased their special addition to child benefit—now to be renamed "one-parent benefit"—by 50 per cent. and extended entitlement to cover those relatives who, although not parents, are bringing up a child on their own.
  For needy families in work we have doubled the family income supplement, with the result that about 11,000 more families are now entitled to it. The hon. Gentleman got the question of equal treatment wrong. I can well understand that. These are complicated matters, and I certainly do not hold it against him. We are not obliged by any European directive to extend the supplement to women, which was the point about which he was complaining. We have chosen to do so. The change will come into effect in 1983 at the same time as the changes to supplementary benefit, which we are obliged to undertake under a European directive. We are going further than the Community requires. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now rise to give us credit for that.
  Mr. Buchan: I rise to express my perplexity. Every time that the right hon. Gentleman mentions the family income supplement he states that it must be dealt with in relation to the other benefits. No one can tell me why, least of all his Department. It is nonsense. There is no reason why it cannot be brought in now. If it had been linked to a Common Market timetable we might have excused the Government for shoving it to one side. But as the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not there is no reason why the measure should not be brought in now.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman's insatiability for doing everything now would be more impressive had the Labour Government done a little more.
  Since November we have received about 18,000 more claims for FIS than in the same period last year. The average number of new claims per week is running at about 5,250, which is roughly double the normal intake. Bearing in mind that, by definition, FIS goes to low-income families whose breadwinner is in work, that is some indication that our recent publicity efforts are paying off. FIS is an essential part of the safety net for families. We believe that it is of the highest importance that all who can claim should do so.
  Still dealing with families, in the reformed supplementary benefit scheme, about which I shall have more to say in a moment, new help is being directed to families with children. Moreover, the new tapered disregard for the earnings of one-parent families will help many more single parents to take part-time work. Those are small but important improvements for hard-pressed sectors of our society.
  I know that there is concern in all parts of the House, not least among a number of my hon. Friends, about the future of child benefit. When we increased the benefit last year we undertook, subject—as such a commitment must always be—to economic and other circumstances, to uprate it each year to maintain its real value. With the Budget only a few weeks away, I cannot go further this afternoon. It is important—and we gave some indication of this when in Opposition—that child benefit should be
  172
  looked at at the same time as the tax allowances are looked at in the Budget. It is not only the Chancellor who has to go into purdah at this time of year. We want to know the views of hon. Members. If the past is any guide, I know that a number of my hon. Friends will not be bashful in making their views known.
  Thirdly, the steep rise in world energy prices, from which we cannot isolate ourselves, has posed acute problems for needy pensioners, the disabled and families on low incomes. So, last November, we introduced our £100 million package of help, bringing total spending on fuel help to £200 million. That was substantially higher than anything done by the Labour Government. Most of that help is rightly concentrated on the poorest of all—those who depend on supplementary benefit and family income supplement. More than 2 million people, 1½ million of them pensioners, are receiving worthwhile extra help thanks to our scheme. I stress "worthwhile" because the help given under this scheme is infinitely more worth while than the ill-fated electricity discount scheme, which spread small sums very widely. Last year we raised the supplementary benefit heating addition by more than the rise in fuel prices. We shall announce the next increase at the time of the Budget.
  Mr. Reg Race: The new regulations introduced by the Government set out several criteria for giving exceptional needs payments to families having difficulty in paying their fuel bills. Will the Secretary of State explain how, under that system, someone who falls within all the criteria can still be disregarded and refused an exceptional needs payment?
  Mr. Jenkin: The short answer to that is "Not without notice". If the hon. Gentleman lets me have the details of the case that he has in mind I shall ensure that it is investigated.
  There is the question of making the best use of available resources. I believe that the whole country is behind the Government in their firm tackling of social security fraud and abuse. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North will know that we are building on what we recognise as the sound foundations laid by our predecessors. We are massively increasing the amount of benefit that we are saving as a result of the discovery of fraud. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman even bothered to try to persuade his colleagues to allow him to employ additional fraud investigators in his Department, where savings would substantially outweigh the cost of additional employment. When we employed additional people, I was told that it was the first time that any Government had made the sensible decision to trade off savings on benefit against the far smaller cost of employing additional people.
  Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State must realise that he is talking nonsense. It is true that the Government have a dual responsibility, to ensure that people who are entitled to benefits know of the benefits and receive them, and that those who receive benefits to which they are not entitled should be discouraged and prevented from doing so and, if necessary, prosecuted, and when I was Secretary of State that action was taken successfully. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have so accelerated the anti-fraud campaign as to deter many people from claiming the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not surprised that, faced with my earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman changed the subject. He was not able to persuade his colleagues to allow him to employ additional people. He had to take people away from other work, such as visiting, in order to have more fraud investigators. The House is entitled to know how the programme is progressing. I hope to make a statement about the results of the current campaign early in the next financial year.
  Going beyond the social security budget, but still relevant to the needy, our final priority has been to protect the NHS and to ask local government to do the same for its most vulnerable groups. Spending on the NHS continues to rise in line with our predecessors' plans. It is right to remind the Opposition that, on current forecasts, spending on the personal social services in the five years from 1979 to 1980 will be higher in real terms than in the five years of Labour Government.
  In the face of those facts—and they are facts—anyone who argues that we are destroying the welfare services of Britain is simply deceiving the people. My defence of our policies does not stop there. We have never regarded it as enough simply to batten down the hatches and maintain the existing system. As everyone knows, it is complicated. There are substantial overlaps with private provision, and the sheer cost of running the system, in terms of both manpower and money, is huge. We have therefore embarked upon a series of reforms that will simplify the system, cut out wasteful duplication, bring the short-term benefits within the tax system—to which the Opposition agreed in principle—and modernise the administration of the service.
  The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West had a certain amount to say about the new supplementary benefit scheme. It is early days yet, but all the indications are that the reforms have got off to a good start almost everywhere. Considerable credit is due to the staff and managers in my Department, whose efforts during the months that preceded the changeover deserve the thanks of the House. Nevertheless, we are not complacent. We are commissioning a number of independent research studies into different aspects of the new scheme. We are collecting statistics about certain aspects of the scheme, and we are undertaking special inquiries into the more sensitive areas.
  One change has been widely welcomed, namely, that we have put claimants' rights on a legal footing and taken steps to ensure that they are aware of their rights.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I may have some good news—even for him. The rules are set out in regulations. The adjudication system has been remodelled on the lines of that tried and tested over many years for national insurance benefits. We have expanded the supplementary benefits handbook, which explains the rules of the scheme in layman's language. The handbook was praised by speakers on both sides of the House in an earlier debate. We are issuing written notices of assessment. It is astonishing that this has not happened before. Accompanying them will be an explanatory leaflet to all new claimants, and to other claimants where there is a major change. As hon. Members will be aware, further information has been made available by the chief supplementary benefit officer's decision to publish his
  174
  guidance bearing on claimants' entitlement. All that represents a considerable improvement on what happened previously.
  I can now announce a further step in our campaign for open government in relation to supplementary benefit—
  Sir Frederick Burden: We must accept that my right hon. Friend's advice to Members to approach heads of local DHSS offices direct about subjects of great concern to constituents has been most helpful and has cleared the approaches for constituents. A great deal of credit for that should go to the managers of local DHSS offices.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks. One of the unexpected but welcome by-products of the letter that I sent to every right hon. and hon. Member has been the number of letters that I have received from all parts of the House telling us about the splendid service from local offices. Those remarks have been passed on to the offices concerned and have been very much appreciated.
  I want to announce a further step in our policy for open government in relation to supplementary benefit. We shall make publicly available the instructions to supplementary benefit staff—the so-called "S" manual. That manual replaces the "A" code under the old scheme. The fact that the old "A" code was never published led for many years to suspicion that somehow the scheme was being operated on secret instructions. The manual has, of course, to be overhauled to incorporate the new guidance now being issued by the chief supplementary benefit officer. We are working towards a manual that will contain all the information issued to local offices, bearing on entitlement to supplementary benefit. That revised manual will be made public. The revision will, of course, take some time, but it should be available around the end of the year. The important thing is that what I am announcing today is a firm decision in principle to publish. We shall work towards it as rapidly as we can. I hope that it will be welcomed by the many organisations concerned with claimants' rights.
  Much of the case made by the hon. Gentleman turned on the rising unemployment, which, without doubt, is causing a great deal of hardship and distress in the land. I expect that the House will wish to debate this matter fully on Thursday in the debate on the economy, so I shall be brief about it now.
  The hon. Gentleman is himself no stranger to arguments about unemployment. Indeed, one of the factors which he and I recognised when he was on the Government side, as we are now, and which, I think, establishes common ground between us, is one that I shall put to him now. Quite apart from the effects of the recession, and quite apart from the effects of technological change and of rising competition, we are having to cope also with an increase in the labour supply. There have been more young people and more married women coming onto the job market, which has been pretty static for several years as our economy has ground along in bottom gear.
  Perhaps I may now quote something that was written in 1978:
  "The 1,500,000 unemployed is therefore entirely due to an expansion of the work force in Britain. And over the next decade an additional 1,500,000 more will be in the labour force. That leaves, even with improved growth, a possible 3,000,000 by the end of the 1980s. To try to blame this"—
  the article went on—

  175
  "on the mishandling by any Goverment—Tory or Labour—does not get us very far."
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, because he wrote it himself, in the Glasgow Herald. I have it here if he is in any doubt about it. It appeared under the heading "Danger of Package Politics", with a splendid picture of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. I repeat the closing words:
  "to try to blame this on the mishandling by any Government—Tory or Labour—does not get us very far."
  I suggest that it has not got us very far this afternoon, either.
  Mr. Buchan: The Secretary of State has not read the entire article, which explained exactly what was happening in new technologies, and so forth, and this makes even more serious the fact that the Government do not recognise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wriggling."] No, I am not wriggling. I suggest that the Secretary of State should read the entire article. What I was saying there—the Government should take it on board—is that there are deep-seated reasons, including major technological reasons, why fewer and fewer people are needed to produce the same volume of goods.
  Therefore, if we are to recognise that and act accordingly, measures must be taken to ensure that it does not create a body of people at work and a body of people unemployed. Secondly, it makes it all the more necessary to take action in a developing situation such as this to ensure that our unemployed are treated as having rights, instead of being put on a means-tested basis. I wish that the Secretary of State would read the article.
  Mr. Jenkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's unease at being reminded of what he wrote two and a half years ago, but I fully concede, if he wants me to, that his remedies are not my remedies, and the House will have to decide at the end of today and on Thursday on which side it stands.
  We on the Government Benches believe that in order to provide more jobs we must halt and reverse the long-term decline of the British economy. We need to reduce inflation to the levels of our successful competitors. We need lower interest rates. The Government must borrow less. We need a real shift from what Bacon and Eltis, in their widely praised book a few years ago, called the non-market sector of the economy towards productive industry.
  That is the strategy on which we have embarked and, with inflation now coming down rapidly and with more and more forecasters predicting the beginning of a slow recovery later this year, it is reasonable for us to argue that, despite all the difficulties, we are more or less on course. Of course, there are casualties in the fight against inflation—mainly those who lose their jobs—but here, too, we are helping. In the coming year we shall spend no less than £570 million on special employment measures, much of it for the young.
  The Opposition sometimes pretend—if they feel the need to say anything about it at all—that there is some quick, easy solution to all these problems, but it is very difficult to know what they have in mind. The other day the Leader of the Opposition called for more Socialism—more, apparently, than we have ever seen before. I was reminded of King Lear, who threatened to do
  176
  "such things—What they are yet I know not; but they shall be The terrors of the earth."
  They certainly appear to have terrified a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Some right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are more specific. They want higher borrowing and lower interest rates, both at the same time. I have to say that this is a combination that does not appear in the economics textbooks. They want, too, a lower exchange rate for sterling. Perhaps they could achieve that with other policies. I doubt that they would see the sort of gentle depreciation in the pound that they envisaged. What they would see is the sort of devastating run on sterling that has happened under virtually every Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer since the war.
  On one thing we can depend with certainty. The policies which the Opposition seem to want would put us fairly and squarely back on the road to hyper-inflation. What would that do to provide lasting jobs for the unemployed? What would that do for the disabled? What would that do for single-parent families? What would that do for pensioners or for the low-paid, about whom the hon. Gentleman waxed so eloquent?
  Inflation is the engine that destoys prosperity and creates poverty. Inflation is the biggest enemy of the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "This Government put it up."] When Socialists talk about poverty, they talk about it not in absolute but in relative terms. For them, the way to abolish poverty is redistributive tax and spending policies that seek to produce not just equality of opportunity but what the Americans have called equality of result. We could argue the philosophical case for and against that view of the world, but what never ceases to surprise me is that so many Socialists do not appear to recognise the grossly unfair effects of inflation.
  Inflation does not redistribute resources according to need. It redistributes them according to chance and according to muscle power. That is the sort of redistribution that the Labour Party offers us today. It has nothing whatever to do with elimination of poverty or the creation of a more just and fair society.
  The truth is that what we are able to do for the poor, for the sick, for the retired and for families depends on what we can afford. The standard of social provision in any civilised society is largely the result of its economic performance. If we want better hospitals, we need more competitive industries. If we want higher benefits for those who cannot work, we need higher productivity from those who can.
  The future of the Welfare State and the future competitiveness of British industry are therefore two sides of the same coin. Our social services will depend upon the success or failure of our efforts to rebuild our strength as a trading nation. Equally, the structure, the priorities and the quality of services that we are able to provide will help to create a social climate in which success is more likely. In other words, we have to develop a more competitive economy, while at the same time building on our traditional instinct for co-operation.
  It is partly for that reason that I believe we should take a less monolithic view of our caring services, strengthening the voluntary movement wherever possible, not because it provides a cheaper way of doing things, but because it often provides a better way of doing things. To

  177
  go back to the oldest metaphor in the argument, our statutory services should be a safety net, not a blanket that smothers initiative and self-help.
  The challenge for the Government is threefold: first, to make the most effective use of the money that we can responsibly spend on health and social security, taking special care of those who are frequently the innocent casualties of the fight against inflation; secondly, to win that fight and rebuild the foundations of a stronger and healthier economy, able to sustain a higher standard of living for the British people and better social welfare; and thirdly, to enlist the energy, the imagination and the sense of community of our people in developing a broader base for the Welfare State, to which both parties are committed.
  In the confidence that, whatever the difficulties, we have begun to discharge those tasks, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government amendment in the Lobby tonight.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: We have heard a speech from the Secretary of State which failed completely to answer the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I am shocked to find a Secretary of State so totally unable to deal with some fundamental points about poverty in Britain which were put to him by my hon. Friend.
  The Secretary of State made a number of grave misjudgments in his speech. I shall deal with a number of those and his failure to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West. First, he said that inflation was the enemy of the poor. The real enemy of the poor is the Govenment's policy. This policy—pursued relentlessly ever since the Government came into office—has been most damaging to the poor people of this country. I wonder what the poor, the underprivileged, the unemployed, the single-parent families and the disabled will think when the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says "We are on course". What a statement to make!
  The Secretary of State, by saying that there are no easy solutions, caricatures our case because we do not pretend that there are easy solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West made a number of proposals which were not dealt with by the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the philosophy of the Conservative Party. I should like to make a few observations on the philosophy of the Conservative Party because there is no doubt that the philosophy of the Government is impoverishing the impecunious. The policies are harsh and divisive. They are oppressing the poor and damaging the disabled. The real problem is that the policies are based on a delusion. Let us get down to the heart of the policy propounded by the Secretary of State. His policies are dominated by the theory that by raising the living standards of the wealthy and lowering the living standards of the poor he can create an incentive society and thereby a prosperous nation. That is the philosophy of the Conservative Government—the theory of conservatism. It has not worked in the past, it has never worked throughout history, and it certainly will not work in the future.
  When the great apostle of conservatism, Disraeli, spoke of two nations the philosophy was not working. It certainly did not work before Disraeli. It has not worked since Disraeli and the Government are a throw-back to the theory and principle adumbrated centuries ago and
  178
  practised for hundreds of years which has failed and failed again. The reason why it fails is that instead of creating an incentive society it creates deep and dividing bitterness in our society. It creates anger and strife. It creates the kind of thing that St. Francis of Assisi would have frowned upon. The Conservative philosophy of helping the rich and damaging the poor creates bitterness and strife where there could be harmony.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and his boss, the Prime Minister, will remember that and bear it in mind. The policy sometimes wins sullen acquiescence. It usually wins non-co-operation. I am speaking not now of industry but of social policies. It always creates deep and dividing distrust and sometimes genuine social unrest.
  The main reason for this philosophy is ignorance of the lifestyle of millions of the very poor, the unemployed, single-parent families and severely disabled people. Despite the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) when he was Minister and all those who supported him, despite the brilliant work of Professor Peter Townsend, despite the valuable work of the Child Poverty Action Group and all the groups which make representations to the Secretary of State, Ministers still do not understand the problems of the poor. What other reason can there be be for cutting incomes, pensions and benefits, for penalising the long-term unemployed, and for hitting the disabled?
  That ignorance is compounded by hostility to poor people. I say that understanding the problems of the Minister. I know that he cannot wave a magic wand, but his party is hostile to the poor. I do not include all Conservative Members, because there are some good blokes on the Government Benches. There are some sincere hon. Members on the Back Benches. I hear them speak with sincerity about poverty. But the general philosophy of the Tory Party is hostile to the poor because it believes basically that the poor have nothing to contribute to its incentive society. The Conservative Party does not believe that it is worth while giving incentives to the poor.
  The evidence of that hostility is in the scrounger campaign. The Secretary of State has not played a leading role in that campaign, although he has played a role. The leading role was played by the former Minister with responsibility for the disabled. I am not favouring scroungers. I do not favour pickpockets. We should try to stop both of them from operating. But the scheme which may save £50 million is being pursued with vigour and imposes fear on legitimate claimants. Many poor people are becoming afraid to claim their rights because of the vigour and the hostility with which the former Minister with responsibility for the disabled pursued that campaign.
  I want to put to the Secretary of State a different principle touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West. I should prefer more effort to be put into not simply stopping the pickpockets but catching bank robbers. We should take a much closer look at the black economy.
  I hope that the Secretary of State read the fascinating exchanges in the twenty-ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee. Sir Lawrence Airey, the chairman of the Inland Revenue, conceded under some pressure that no less than £3,000 million is lost in tax through the black economy each year. That is not £5 million but £3,000 million. The chairman was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I suggest that

  179
  in addition to the campaign against scroungers—and people who fiddle must be stopped—a campaign should be launched to deal with the black economy. In addition to the 1,000 people who have been recruited to stop the scroungers, a large number of people should be employed to end the black economy. If we wipe out the black economy, the £3,000 million should go to help the poor people in Britain. That money should be used to help the single-parent families, the long-term unemployed and the disabled.
  The Prime Minister was asked recently about helping disabled people. She made a remarkable reply. I asked her a question and she said that it was of course the Government's intention to increase resources when they could. She also said:
  "The International Year of Disabled People will, I hope, call forth a lot more voluntary effort on the part of the disabled. Most of us think that it is more laudable to try to do something for oneself than to get up and take a public stance on an issue to try to persuade the Government to do it."—[Official Report, 13 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 1239.]
  What did the Prime Minister mean by that? She is not an insensitive woman. Did she mean that people who are suffering from muscular dystrophy, spastics or blind people should stand up and help themselves? People are using POSSUM only to open doors. Are they the type of people who should help themselves? Is that the philosophy that the Prime Minister is adumbrating?
  I am deeply concerned by the answers provided by the Secretary of State today and by the Prime Minister. Severely disabled people cannot help themselves. The long-term unemployed cannot help themselves to jobs when there are no jobs. It behoves the Government to change their policy and to be more positive.
  The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has written to me expressing its deep concern about the present Government's policy. Its evidence of hardship to disabled people was emphasised by the secretary of the Association of Directors of Social Services, Mr. Brian Whitecroft. He spoke of the figures produced by the Secretary of State and about what was being done to help. Mr. Whitecroft said:
  "When inflation is taken into account there should be an increase to maintain the present level of services and maintain and expand the services of some 16 per cent."
  That has not been done. There have been some very serious cuts in those services.
  The Secretary of State says that the voluntary associations should help. Mr. Whitecroft says that the finances for voluntary associations have been cut by 25 per cent.
  All the facts about the philosophy of the Conservative Party, about the money that it has allocated and about its attitude underline the basic theme of the debate—that the poor of Britain are being damaged by this Government. I call upon the Secretary of State to think again. There is no need to pursue a policy which is damaging the underprivileged in our society. We are not asking for the moon. We are asking for a change of emphasis.
  Please do not make us believe that Britain's economy depends upon oppressing such people. The Government must stop dividing the nation and jumping on poor people. They must give them some help and show a little humanitarian concern. I urge the Secretary of State to change his policy and to help people in the greatest need.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Paul Dean: I am glad to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). We all admire the courage which has enabled him to triumph over disability and the example and encouragement that he has given to other disabled persons. I shall comment on some of his arguments later.
  First, I wish to comment on the motion tabled by the Opposition in their usual extravagant language, and the speech by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Not for the first time the Opposition have shown a convenient disregard for their own record in office and a failure to face economic realities. I am talking not only of the current recession but about long-term trends.
  Three key factors which cannot be neglected in social service debates stand out in sharp relief. The first is that the budgets for social security and health amount to over one-quarter of all public expenditure. For some years they have been growing three times as fast as the national wealth.
  Secondly, there is a growing proportion of elderly, particularly very elderly, people. That trend will continue, with all the implications which it rightly has on pensions, health services and local authority personal social services. Thirdly, the growth rates in our economy are nothing like as good as they were some decades ago. They are not only British problems. The problems confront, to a greater or lesser extent, all advanced communities in Western Europe, America and elsewhere.
  Present commitments to the Welfare State, the expectations that we have aroused and the improvements that we want to introduce are progressing much faster than the money to pay for them. That is the harsh reality. It is clear, as my right hon. Friend said, that if we are to maintain the essential fabric of the Welfare State against that background we must prune the non-essential, wipe out abuses and get better value for money.
  Of course, these things are easier said than done. Cuts do not necessarily produce savings. Further, the all-important human factors have to be taken into account. There are areas where chopping a programme, if it affects the elderly or the disabled, can have a devastating affect on vulnerable individuals. The best example is in the personal social services run by the local authorities. I am glad to note that in Government thinking and in the thinking of local authorities there is now a shift of emphasis from cutting programmes to cutting costs within programmes.
  I should like to give the House two illustrations of what I mean from my county council of Avon. It has been doing its utmost to respond to the Government's call for economies in public expenditure and to keep within cost limits. One of the factors that it has had to consider is the possibility of closing some of the older old people's homes and some of the training centres for the handicapped. When it examines those matters it is finding that although there may be short-term savings by these policies they will almost inevitably mean consequential additional expenditure elsewhere. We cannot go far down the road of closing old people's homes, and so on, without creating additional pressure on geriatric beds in the National Health Service. Avon county council is now trying to avoid closures of that sort, and it is making economies within the programmes.
  Mr. Rooker Mr. Rooker rose—
  Mr. Dean: I should like to finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  My second illustration concerns manpower. A substantial proportion of any local authority budget is spent on manpower. Here, Avon county council hopes that if it is able to save £500,000 on the social services budget through manpower it will be able to allocate additional resources to more important programmes and services, for example, better furniture and equipment for residential homes, day-care centres and more aids for the handicapped. It is also finding that it may be able to spend more on intermediate treatment and community support, thus relieving the pressure on residential care. It also hopes to be able to allocate more resources for boarding allowances for fostering children, thus saving capital expenditure
  I quote those illustrations as two good examples of Avon county council responding to the need for economies while at the same time making every effort to preserve the essential fabric of the social services that it provides.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has given a good example of a county council that may be—I do not have all the details—weighing up the pros and cons of the decisions that it will have to make. But what is the answer to Solihull district council, which is meeting today, and is about to cut the home help service by 24 per cent.? That can only lead to more people losing jobs involving looking after old people, and it will put pressure on old people's homes. The council will have to cut the field work staff by 62 per cent. That is a Tory-controlled authority. It is not following the Government's advice.
  Mr. Dean: I gave an example of a county council in the area that I know. I am suggesting to the House that the change of emphasis from cutting programmes to cutting costs within programmes is a policy that can be achieved. I hope and believe that the Government will encourage local authorities to do likewise.
  The watchwords should be "Cut costs, not programmes for vulnerable sections of the community".
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is fortunate, in the sense that he is talking about Avon. The Black report clearly states that there are 10 inner city areas of this country where a cutback of any sort means despair for 30 or 40 years—areas with the highest perinatal mortality, the highest death rate, the longest housing queues, a decline in rate payment and a decline in rate support grants. How can those 10 authorities cope with the problem?
  Mr. Dean: I am saying that, given the need to economise, there are ways. I have quoted Avon county council as a concrete example of how it is possible, within limited resources, to save on costs without cutting programmes. I commend the example of the Avon county council to the hon. Gentleman's county council.
  I turn now to the cash benefits. The Government are right to look for economies in short-term benefits—as they did last year—in order to maintain priority for the long-term benefits. There is a firm pledge from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with regard to the long-term benefits. She said in the House on 25 November 1980:
  "The full value of the pension in terms of what it will buy will be preserved.…The undertaking is to compensate fully for price increases over the lifetime of a Parliament."—[Official Report, 25 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 488.]
  182
  That pledge has been honoured and more than honoured so far in this Parliament; and we have the word of the Prime Minister that it will be honoured in the future. In the light of that, there can be no justification for the extravagant language in the Opposition motion or for the extravagant language in the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West.
  There are two areas where the Government should aim to do better in 1981 than they were able to do in 1980. They should aim to do more for the disabled and families with children. I turn first to the disabled. I suppose that I should declare an interest, as a war pensioner.
  In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described some of the welcome improvements that the Government have made in services for the disabled. I am still disappointed that the invalidity benefit was bracketed with the short-term benefits in 1980 and had an abatement of 5 per cent. I recognise that the Government are committed to restoring the position of invalidity benefit, so that it is equivalent to the retirement pension, as soon as the resources permit. I hope that resources will permit this year—this appropriate year, the International Year of Disabled People. We should not wait until the invalidity benefit is brought into the tax system because many of those in receipt of the benefit are below the tax level. If it is not possible to do that this year, I hope that the Government will look carefully at what is now being described as the "invalidity trap". That was well described in a recent paper produced by Disability Alliance. It said:
  "Many invalidity pensioners are caught in what might be termed the 'invalidity trap'. Their income is too high for them to qualify for supplementary benefit at the ordinary rate, yet it falls below what they would receive were they eligible for supplementary benefit at the long-term rate. Because they do not qualify for the former they can never qualify for the latter, though their situation is a long-term one and their income is less than the minimum regarded by the Government as necessary for people in that situation."
  According to a parliamentary answer, there are about 100,000 in that category. I hope that this year the Government will be able to do for them what last year they did for the young disabled aged 16 and 17 years. That was a welcome removal of the anomaly for those young people, and I hope that the Government will consider seriously the possibility of enabling invalidity pensioners to qualify for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit after a year on invalidity benefit. That would go a long way to deal with those invalidity pensioners who are most in need.
  I hope, too, that during this International Year of Disabled People the Government will feel able to take another initiative. In its manifesto at the last general election the Conservative Party stated:
  "Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability".
  That is clearly a long-term aim, but there is a case for a Green Paper in 1981. That would indicate that the Government mean what they say and intend to provide a positive response to the International Year of Disabled People. I recognise that there is a risk that a Green Paper will create expectations that cannot immediately be fulfilled, but against that there is a great deal of work to be done. There is no agreement among disabled organisations about the right form for a comprehensive income. I suggest that a Green Paper produced this year with a fairly prolonged period of consultation would be a

  183
  most valuable step towards this long-term aim. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will be able to give an encouraging response to that suggestion.
  There is little doubt from the figures, including the impressive memorandum that we have had from the Child Poverty Action Group, that families with children have come out badly in comparison with childless couples. The traditional commitment of the Conservative Party to support family life needs reinforcement during 1981. Child benefit is now the main vehicle for family support. It is also one of the best ways of relieving the poverty trap and producing incentives to work. I do not wish to expand these arguments as I know that a number of my hon. Friends wish to do so.
  The Government are pledged to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value subject to economic and other circumstances. To increase it by whatever is required to maintain the value of the benefit seems to be a high priority in the Government's programme for this year.
  In highlighting these three aspects I am suggesting what seem to me to be the three main priorities for progress during 1981—namely, the local authority personal social services, provision for the disabled and support for families with children. I support the Government's general policy, charcterised as it is by realism and humanity. I contrast that with the unreality and wishful thinking of the Opposition. I shall therefore have no hesitation in voting for the Government's amendment.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: First, I turn to the Secretary of State's speech, which I did not think was worthy of him. I complain about the attempt to insult my intelligence. The right hon. Gentleman said that Socialists do not seem to understand the effects of inflation. I have been a life-long Socialist and I well-understand the effects of inflation on those whom I represent, who are not well heeled enough to build hedges against it. It is fair to say that there are many who are doing very nicely, thank you, under the policies of the right hon. Gentleman, and who have a vested interest in high inflation. Ask the property speculators if they want lower inflation.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had no desire to insult his considerable intelligence. However, he must acknowledge that if his party persists in calling at the same time for lower interest rates and higher public spending, that will be the road to hyperinflation. It will be the poor who will suffer most from that. If the hon. Gentleman will accept that, there will be nothing between us.
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept that. However, I shall spend no more time directly on the right hon. Gentleman. I shall develop my speech as I go along.
  I refer to the plight of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, part of which I have the honour to represent in this place. We now have 18,544 of our citizens unemployed. That compares with 13,736 a year ago. That is an increase of 4,808, or 35 per cent. About 43 per cent. of council house tenants are in receipt of relief, such as social security benefit and rent or rate rebates. When I think of the deprivation being suffered by thousands of my fellow citizens in Newcastle, and when I recall the Prime
  184
  Minister's words on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street, when she quoted St. Francis of Assissi on 4 May 1979, I feel outraged that she should have bastardised the words of a saint. Before I resume my place I shall justify fully the charge that I have made against the Prime Minister.
  I turn to Government policy as it affects low-paid workers, and I declare a dual interest. I am a sponsored member of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and as the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West I represent many thousands of low-paid workers. The Tories do not have an overt policy for the low-paid, but some of their other policies on tax, social security and employment have been universally damaging to the low-paid. Far from increasing the protection available to a group that suffers disproportionately from the ravages of inflation—the right hon. Gentleman conceded that—the Government dismantled much of the existing protection.
  The Government have increased the tax burden on the low-paid. They have pushed up the in-work poverty line—that is, the family income supplement—in such a way as to widen the poverty trap. They have reduced other social security benefits for the low-paid. They have abolished the fair wages legislation for workers not employed on Government contracts. They have destroyed the low-paid workers's chances of organising in unions, by abolishing recognition procedures. They have announced plans to cut back the staffing of the Wages Inspectorate, which polices legal minimum wages set out by the wages councils. They have imposed a direct pay policy on all but some of the lowest-paid public service workers by linking them to the 6 per cent. increase.
  According to the new earnings survey of 1980, there are 1 million men aged 21 and over who are paid less than £75 a week, including overtime, and there are 2·5 million women aged 18 and over who are paid less than £75 a week, again including overtime—and I remind the House that £75 a week is the recognised figure for the low-paid. That totals 3½ million adult workers.
  If we exclude overtime payments, the number of low-paid workers increased by 0·6 million men and 0·1 million women, making a total of 4·2 million low-paid workers. In addition, it is estimated that there are 250,000 low-paid young men, and 1·7 million part-time workers receiving a lower hourly rate of pay than would yield £75 for a 40-hour week. The total number of workers earning less than £75 per week or its equivalent could therefore be as high as 5½ million.
  I turn to the effects of the Government's taxation policies on the low-paid. In each of the three Budget Statements so far the Government have damaged the interests of the low-paid. In the first Budget they cut direct taxes on higher-rate taxpayers by almost £1,500 million. One-third of all moneys distributed by tax cuts went to the higher-rate taxpayers, although they represent only 5 per cent. of the tax-paying population. Meanwhile, the low-paid received less in direct tax cuts than was immediately retrieved by the increase in value added tax.
  The Government's second Budget abolished the £750 band taxable at 25 per cent. That had been introduced specifically to aid the low-paid. As a result, 2,275,000 taxpayers faced a rise from an initial 25 per cent. to a 30 per cent. tax rate. Yet the Tory election manifesto had claimed:
  "We shall cut income tax at all levels.…It is especially important to cut the absurdly high marginal rates of tax both at the bottom and top of the income scale."

  185
  So much for Tory manifesto pledges. Of the revenue forgone by the direct tax cuts, 10·1 per cent. finished up in the pockets of those earning more than £20,000 per year. They constitute only 1·5 per cent. of taxpayers. Only 26·6 per cent. of revenue forgone went to those earning less than £5,000 per year, although they comprise 41·2 per cent. of taxpayers.
  In the most recent Tory statement, national insurance payments were increased as from April this year. As a result of that increase, the marginal tax rate—that is, the income tax rate plus national insurance contributions—will have been increased from 31·5 per cent. in June 1979 to at least 37·75 per cent. in April this year. In the same period, the marginal tax rate for a person earning £500 per week will have declined from 83 per cent. to 60 per cent. As I said, those are the people who have a vested interest in high inflation rates.
  I turn to the Tory poverty trap. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) covered that subject very well, and gave examples. I charge the Government with having made the poverty trap worse by abolishing the lower rate tax band, by announcing a planned increase in national insurance contributions and by increasing the eligibility limits for family income supplement by so much as to ensure that even more families will be affected by the poverty trap because the overlap between tax thresholds and social security eligibility limits has been increased by so much.
  I turn to social security benefits and the abolition of the means test for free school meals. Only recipients of family income supplement or supplenentary benefit are now eligible for school meals. That means that the loss of FIS inflicts a further immediate cash loss in terms of free school meals. The scrapping of the means test for free school meals has deprived 500,000 schoolchildren of school meals and has therefore cost their parents five times 35p, or £1·75 per child per week.
  On prescription charges, the Prime Minister appeared on television during the election campaign and said, hand on heart, in front of millions of people, that although the Labour Party had claimed that the Conservatives would increase prescription charges they had no plans to do so. That is what the Prime Minister said, hand on heart, to the nation. But what have we got? A prescription charge of 20p has been increased to £1 per item. We all know that eligibility for free prescriptions is limited to a very few categories, such as old-age pensioners, and the Government themselves admit that the take-up is extremely low. It is not that the lower-paid do not need prescriptions. Studies have indicated that low-paid workers suffer higher average morbidity rates than do others. So the very people who need prescriptions unfortunately nowadays cannot afford to take them up.
  I turn to the subject of collective bargaining. What the Tories have done through meddling with this process has always been to the detriment of the lower-paid. Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act enabled workers to make pay claims through their trade unions, either for the recognised terms and conditions arrived at by national collective bargaining in the industry or for the general level of terms and conditions of comparable workers in the same industry and the same district. In effect, schedule 11 established across the whole of industry the principle of fair wages embodied in the fair wages resolution, which applies only to workers engaged on Government contracts. Despite representations from employers' associations,
  186
  fearful of the undercutting of recognised terms and conditions, the Government abolished schedule 11. They argued, of course, that it benefited the higher-paid rather than the lower-paid, but studies of cases brought under the schedule have shown that workers paid predominantly less than average were the main beneficiaries of that schedule, which the Government have now abolished.
  Attempts have been made to influence the Government to abolish wages councils, which set legal minimum wages for almost 3 million workers. Indeed, a Ten-Minute Bill was introduced by one of the Tory backwoodsmen. So far, however, the Government have not resorted to that tactic—probably because the basic rates awarded by wages councils are ludicrously low. I do not think that any Opposition Member would deny that.
  The Government have, however, significantly undermined the protection afforded by wages councils to low-paid workers in shops, hotels, restaurants, the retailing and clothing industries, hairdressing, and so on. They have done that by announcing cuts of one-third in the Wages Inspectorate. The level of underpayment is already appalling. The last available figures indicate that almost one-third of employers visited by the inspectorate were found to be underpaying. One-eighth of workers whose wages were examined were discovered to be underpaid, on average, by £67·31 per week. That is absolutely scandalous. Yet in the face of those facts, far from increasing the inspectorate, as they should, the Government are bent upon reducing it.
  The Low Pay Unit estimates that the total loss of earnings through underpayment in 1979 was £22 million. My right hon. Friend was right to point out that there are scroungers in society who are scrounging bread out of the mouths of people who can ill afford it—and in the shape of employers, too.
  I have already referred to the 6 per cent. pay norm for local authority workers. No sooner had Clegg dealt with his last case than the Government set about undermining pay relativities, which the Commission had spent so long on establishing. The Government have been anxious to impose reductions in the living standards of public service workers. In fact, it is fair to say that they are hell-bent on doing that. Once again, it is the low-paid, who lack industrial muscle, who are footing the bill for the Government's economic policy.
  The Tories' 6 per cent. cash limit for public sector workers is nothing more than a straightforward 6 per cent. pay policy. No one can deny that. The consequent pay increases that local authority manual workers and NHS ancillary workers receive will not be enough to cover increases in council rents and rates that have been forced on local authorities as a result of the policies of the right hon. Gentleman who presides in Marsham Street. Worse than that, if press leaks are anything to go by the Government are not finished in their crucifixion of the low-paid. There have already been leaks from the Treasury suggesting that the Rooker-Wise amendments will be abandoned in the forthcoming Budget. That means that tax thresholds will increase tax more than the rate of inflation.
  As well as increasing the tax burden of the lower-paid, this move is bound to increase the poverty trap. In addition, the Government's sickness benefit plans, about which even small employers are bitterly complaining, will make the lot of the lower-paid worse, at a time when they are badly in need.

  187
  I trust that what I have said justifies my claim about the Prime Minister's bastardisation of the words of St. Francis of Assisi.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. William Waldegrave: I shall in due course follow the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). He concentrated our minds on one of the most important questions, namely, where exactly the worst impact of this recession is falling. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. He added to the debate, which started somewhat slowly. I think it was the Duke of Devonshire—the one in Balfour's Cabinet—who said that he once had a nightmare that he was speaking in the House of Lords, woke up, and found that he was. I felt that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) woke up a couple of times during his prolonged speech, and perhaps that was a pity.
  The House is not at its best on these occasions. There is no way in which one can look at the statistics about any of the poverty support schemes that have existed since 1945 and predict from them when changes in the Government have taken place. There is no monopoly of virtue on either side of the House in that regard. I could refer to various lists of statistics which show that in some areas, such as child support, most of the best figures have occurred under Conservative Governments. However, I would not claim that that was because we had a monopoly of virtue. All that that shows is that during the period since the war the economy has functioned relatively strongly for much longer under Conservative Governments than under Labour Governments. Such figures normally simply reflect the strength of the economy.
  We do ourselves no great service by indulging in the worst kind of ping-pong politics, whereby as soon as we go into Opposition we say that everything would have been splendid had we only been in Government. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that.
  I now turn to the line of argument adopted by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West. I should like to concentrate on the question of where the impact of this peculiar recession is falling. It is a peculiar recession, because by no means everybody is worse off. I do not mean merely those who have benefited from cuts in the higher rates of taxation. In the last year, average earnings for those in work ran ahead of average increases in prices. That means that, overall, a large number of working people have had gains in real disposable income during the last 12 months.
  The impact has fallen on smaller numbers who have experienced large falls in real disposable income, such as those who have gone out of work altogether, and particularly—to some extent I am arguing on the basis of instinct rather than figures—the lower-paid. When the figures are published in due course, I suspect that we shall find that the more highly unionised groups, many of them in the public sector, have kept ahead of inflation in the last year, and that it has been those at the weaker end of the employment market who have suffered.
  I think that we shall find that workers earning about three-quarters of average earnings and below have taken the brunt of the fall in living standards, apart from those who have gone out of work altogether. But even among
  188
  that group the impact has not been evenly spread. Within that group there has been a marked difference in the impact on those with families and those without. In fact, there has been a small improvement in the position of childless couples during the last year, both between the two Budgets and following the second one. One can arrive at the figures in various ways. If one merely takes the tax burden, one will see that there has been a small drop in the tax burden of a childless couple on three-quarters of average earnings. However, for a couple with two children in a similar position there has been quite a significant increase in the tax burden. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, that increase has been of the order of 11.6 per cent.
  There are other ways of measuring the impact. Again, I must acknowledge the help of the CPAG. The Inland Revenue itself has produced an index, which in General Haig-type language it calls "the tax break-even-point-index". That measures the point at which money paid out in tax exactly balances the money received in cash benefits. According to that index, which the Inland Revenue has calculated by valuing child benefit and family allowances in cash terms back to 1945, there has been a marked deterioration in the position of a family with two children of seven index points over the last year, compared with the position of a childless couple. That seems to indicate that the impact of this recession, apart from the impact on those who have suffered by losing their jobs, is being felt by the lower-paid family in work.
  What can the Government do about it? We know that there is only one great instrument at the Government's disposal which can attack this problem, and that is the instrument of child benefit. Before developing my argument and saying what I think should be done, I should point out that subsiduary arguments can be advanced in favour of that instrument. Mention has already been made of the effects of the "Why work?" syndrome and marginal tax rates. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West gave examples based, in fact, on the CPAG calculations of the poverty trap for families with children. According to the latest figures from the CPAG, a three-child family is worse off if it earns £81 than if it earns £61, assuming that it claims all the means-tested benefits to which it is entitled. For a two-child family, the figures are £75 and £55.
  Over the past few years the situation has worsened. The Government have made the situation worse as a result of increased reliance on means-tested benefits, and as a result of the increased value of some of the means-tested items involved, such as school meals. The problem is becoming acute. That remains a subsidiary but powerful argument for child benefit.
  The principal argument for reliance on child benefit is that it is the only weapon with which we can directly attack the problem of those on low pay who have families. In a different world, with a different economic situation, it might be posible to talk in terms of minimum wage levels, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West said. At a time of recession it is not sensible to put much more weight on our mechanisms—such as they are—in this area, or to try to extend them. In such a recession we should try to distribute the burdens by redistributing cash through the tax system. Therefore, nothing other than child benefit can be used.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to me on 11 April 1980. The letter must have been drafted by dozens of people with first-class degrees in various disciplines. Therefore, it was not a very

  189
  clear letter. One could look at it from different angles. One could burn it, and see how the smoke blew in the wind. One could even tear it into pieces, throw it about like leaves in the wind—as they used to do in ancient Rome—and see how the pieces fell. One could do all those things to find out what the letter meant, and still not necessarily be much the wiser.
  I think that it was intended to mean—if that is a meaningful concept in this context—two things. First, it was intended to mean that child benefit retains its centrality to Government policy vis-a-vis the family. Indeed, the letter is relatively clear on that point. There can be no doubt about the emphasis on the centrality of child benefit to the Government's family policy. Secondly, I think that the letter states that child benefit must advance with tax allowances. That is how I interpreted the letter, although it is a matter for scholastic debate whether the letter can be interpreted in other ways.
  I hope that at the very least that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services mean. I was interested when my right hon. Friend said that he had joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer in pre-Budget purdah. That is a hopeful sign. If it means that my right hon. Friend will be genuinely engaged in discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend before the Budget, about its impact on the social programmes, it is a great advance. I hope that my right hon. Friend was not using purdah as a protective device for avoiding answering a question in the House. That would be most uncharacteristic of him. I hope that it means that genuine discussions are going on between my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend about the Budget's impact on the social programmes. If that is so, I am happy to allow my right hon. Friend to veil those discussions in the secrecy of purdah.
  We know that my right hon. Friend is committed to the maintenance of a proper child benefit scheme, but there are some in my party—and many in the country—who are not. Last year I spoke on this subject in the House and I received many letters saying that it was nonsense to encourage people to have children. Some members of the Conservative Party may feel the same. The other day, I remembered those letters and I did a thing that it is always unwise for a Conservative Member or, perhaps, a Labour Member to do. I took a book off my shelf and read it. The book had been written by the former Leader of the Conservative Party, Lord Beaconsfield. It was called "Sybil". In that book, he analysed the social problems of the day.
  The hero is, of course, the younger son of a peer. His older brother, Lord Marney, is a dreadful fellow, who goes about saying that it is the poor's fault for breeding in the first place. He says that they should look after themselves. No one talks like that nowadays. However, the descendants of people with such attitudes are still about. It behoves us to remember that the great Tory tradition of one nation does not even begin with "Sybil"; it begins with Burke and his letter to the electors of Bristol. That is where the slogan of "one nation" first appears. That great Tory tradition has to mean something in a recession and in hard times, or it means nothing.
  What is adequate in terms of action on child benefit? I hope that tax allowances will be allowed to advance with inflation. If they are not, we shall again be allowing the impact of the recession to fall on the lowest-paid. If tax
  190
  allowances are advanced and are not de-Rooker-Wise-Lawsoned—or whatever the phrase is—both they and child benefit will keep pace with inflation.
  As a result, there would have to be an increase of about 50p or 60p in child benefit. That would be tolerable. It would be much better if my right hon. and learned Friend were to restore the value of child benefit to the level that existed when the Conservative Party came into power. That would mean an addition of a little less than £1. I am not so sanguine as to believe that that will happen.
  This year, anything much less than 50p would make nonsense of the remainder of our family policy. Many of us would find it difficult to support the abandonment of that policy. A wide gap would open up between the rhetoric that we used and meant when we were in Opposition—just as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West means it now that he is in Opposition—and Government practice. It would mean that the coherent theme that we developed to link the different parts of our social policy had been lost. I refer to the family theme so eloquently described in an article in Tory Review last year, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), who has recently been promoted to the Northern Ireland Office. When we were in Opposition we based our social policy on that theme of the family. Indeed, we based our approach to the election on that theme, and we have used its rhetoric since. That theme will be lost for good if we allow the effectiveness of child benefit to diminish further.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: I am tempted to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), but time does not permit me to do so. However, I warmly welcome everything that he said about child benefit. I think that he received a welcome from both sides of the House. He expressed the view that was expressed last week in the Select Committee on Social Services. It is the all-party, unanimous view that this step should be taken.
  I am also tempted to follow the much less interesting speech of the Secretary of State, but I shall resist that temptation because there is one subject that I wish to bring to the attention of the House, namely, the serious plight of charitable organisations that care for children, the disabled, and the elderly.
  On 19 January 1981 the Prime Minister told the ladies of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service how much she looked to the voluntary sector to plug the gaps—enormous in my view—in the Welfare State. That has always been the right hon. Lady's philosophy, and it has increasingly become the philosophy of the Government Front Bench. Last December, eight major charities, led by the Spastics Society, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for some relief from the intolerable burden of 15 per cent. VAT. The organisations involved were the Spastics Society, Dr. Barnardo's, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, Help the Aged, the Save the Children Fund, the National Children's Home, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.
  Although it is hard to believe, not only did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say "No"; he refused to receive a deputation from those organisations. They make an invaluable contribution to the welfare of the least privileged in our society. The Spastics Society was forced

  191
  to cut its services and had to close its careers and employment educational and advisory service, which is essential if spastics are to be found jobs.
  A month after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to see the deputation, he agreed to do for amateur sportsmen and their clubs what he had refused to do for the voluntary organisations. Even drinks and refreshments in clubhouses are to be exempt from VAT. How can the Chancellor possibly justify this concession when he has refused to help charities that are in serious financial trouble because of the imposition of value added tax?
  Caring for the handicapped and the disadvantaged is surely more important and should be given greater priority than relieving such frivolous activities as golf and horse racing from paying the tax. Tim Yeo, the director of The Spastics Society, said:
  "We are disgusted at this announcement. It shows that the Government really does not care that charities are struggling to maintain their services in the face of crippling burdens that they should not have to bear. It prefers to help sportsmen to buy their drinks on the cheap."
  The next action of the societies was to write to the Prime Minister. In the letter, sent on the day that the right hon. Lady was addressing the WRVS, they said:
  "The virtual doubling of VAT in June 1979 from 8 to 15 per cent. has already compelled us to reduce or limit our services. Unless the burden of VAT is removed, further cuts or limitations will be forced upon us. This will bring inconvenience and hardship to those whom we try to help and inevitably make more people dependent on the already overstretched services of local authorities".
  In a further comment, Tim Yeo said:
  "Commercial businesses recover all their VAT. Local authorities that run residential homes for the handicapped recover all their VAT. So why not The Spastics Society?"
  and the other voluntary organisations that work with local authorities for the same purpose? He added:
  "The Government must realise that we are in a very serious financial position with our highest deficit ever of £823,000. Big cuts in our services to some of the nation's most severely handicapped men, women and children have had to be made. Yet, as local authorities cut back, we are needed more and more. The Government must concede some help. Relief from VAT would be a start in a year that is being devoted to the problems of disabled people".
  On the same day as the Prime Minister made her appeal to the WRVS, the voluntary organisations made their appeal to the Prime Minister. They received a reply from the Prime Minister at considerable length, but it really amounted to only one word—"No". The Government would not help. Although they looked to the voluntary organisations to help, they would not do anything that would relieve their financial situation.
  All that happened at the same time and on almost the same day as the Government issued a circular to health authorities indicating how they should use the power that the House had given them, to the fury of the Opposition Benches, to raise money for health purposes. We had made a great hullaballoo about this when dealing with the Health Services Bill. The Government had brushed aside our protests and described the new power as a modest extension of existing ways by which the National Health Service could draw on voluntary funds. We were accused of making political propaganda by deriding the sight of Health Service staff organising bingo sessions and shaking tins in the market square.
  Mrs. Sara Morrison, chairman of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations—she is no Socialist, not even
  192
  a Social Democrat, so far as I know—felt impelled to write to the Secretary of State for Social Services on 9 January explaining that the council had not raised any objection to the clause at the time because it believed the Government's assurance, to which I have referred, and because it thought that there would be consultation with the Government about any guidance on how the powers would be used.
  The significance of the circular—DHSS health circular (HC (80) 11)—which was sent out on 18 December, just before Christmas, when presumably no one would notice, except the recipients—was grasped by the voluntary organisations only at the beginning of this year, and in her letter Mrs. Morrison expressed deeply felt concern, indeed, alarm, among the voluntary organisations. Four days later, Nicholas Hinton, director of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, described the circular as potentially the most dangerous blow suffered by the voluntary organisations for years. By 20 January, one day after the Prime Minister had spoken to the WRVS, 45 leading charities said that they were extremely angry that they had not been consulted. They felt that they had been misled, and Nicholas Hinton, speaking on their behalf, said
  "Patrick Jenkin should withdraw the circular."
  All hon. Members may not have read the circular. They may wonder what all the fuss is about. They have only to read the circular, which is in the Library, to find out what all the fuss is about. The circular envisages health authorities employing professional fund raisers, major public appeals, involving a wide range of staff, interest-free loans to pay for appeal costs, lotteries, bingo "on a large scale", sponsorship of pharmaceutical companies and donations from drink companies. Fortunately, the Government just managed to escape donations from tobacco companies. However, a pattern of large-scale fund raising was revealed. The Opposition had not realised that the proposals would be on such a scale. We, too, perhaps, had been influenced by the assurances that were given.
  There are four objections to the circular. The first is that it will bring the National Health Service into direct competition for funds with the voluntary sector. The second is that public funds will be available for the starting costs of National Health Service fund raising, while the voluntary organisations have no such financial backing. Thirdly, the circular says that health authorites are
  "in the best position to establish priorities for voluntary help which are compatible with their overall plans for providing services"
  In the view of many voluntary organisations that will threaten the independence of the voluntary movement. The fourth objection is about the lack of consultation with voluntary organisations before the circular was issued. Nicholas Hinton was right when he pointed out that the charities that would expect to suffer most would be those coping with the physically and mentally handicapped and the frail elderly—in fact, those leading charities that are suffering most from the crippling burden of VAT.
  If the Government believe that greater emphasis should be placed on the voluntary organisations and the voluntary movement, they have to do something to enable the voluntary organisations to be in a position to help. The first matter is VAT. It is appalling that there has not been a Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench the whole day. A second requirement is that the Government should withdraw the health circular. I have tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking him to do so. I

  193
  hope that he will decide to do so, in the interests of those organisations that both sides of the House respect. They have done fine work for the people of this country, but today they face dire problems because of the financial burdens placed upon them by the Government.
  6.48 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks, but I support what he says in regard to voluntary organisations. It is important that the Government should take this matter on board and act as quickly as possible. It would not be right for the House to debate poverty without the case for Northern Ireland being placed fairly and squarely on the record. The Secretary of State, in summarising the policy of the Government, said that those most in need would be taken care of. I take issue with the Secretary of State on that enunciation of the Government's policy, because those most in need are not being taken care of. I am very glad that a member of the Government who has served in Northern Ireland is on the Front Bench today; I am sure that he will appreciate what I am about to say about Northern Ireland and its plight.
  Northern Ireland is most in need because of the low incomes of its working people. The average income is well below the national average, while the cost of living is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Then there is the bad housing—housing not fit to be lived in. Some houses are without even one amenity. Some have neither electric light nor piped water, and none of the other amenities.
  Transport costs in Northern Ireland are outrageous. Unemployment is twice the national average, with one in five unemployed. I am very grateful to the spokesman for the Opposition for bringing Northern Ireland into this debate and highlighting the energy costs. I regret that the Secretary of State made no response to that matter, which was placed before him by the Opposition this afternoon.
  We have heard statements today to the effect that the poor are becoming poorer. In Northern Ireland the poor are becoming poorer and colder. This is very serious. If people in Northern Ireland have a gas supply, whether they be on the poverty line or below it, they have to pay three times as much for that gas supply as people anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If they are on an electricity supply they have to pay one-third more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If they are purchasing coal, they have to pay more per ton for each ton that they consume. So at every level of energy the people of Northern Ireland are at a great disadvantage. There is nothing that the Government are doing at present to deal with that. That is the seriousness of the situation.
  Today in the House we have heard talk about the family. I believe in the family. It is the basic unit of society and should be defended at all costs. But let us remember that in Northern Ireland two out of every five children live in a household with an income at or below the level of minimum need. Let hon. Members just think of that. I am referring there to the report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That report states
  "one family in ten is living in unfit accommodation; one in every ten households is living in overcrowded accommodation."
  The situation could not be much graver.
  A survey made of households in Northern Ireland discovered that at least 35 per cent., or 150,330
  194
  households, were living below the needs level, while in the United Kingdom as a whole it is estimated that 21 per cent. of all households were living below the needs level. So hon. Members can see the great gulf between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. At least 191,040 children under 16 are being brought up in families with resources below the needs level. In short, at least 39 per cent. of Northern Ireland children are being brought up in a situation of economic disadvantage. Overall, 478,570 people in Northern Ireland live below the needs level.
  If ever there was a case in regard to need and poverty, that case is Northern Ireland. Yet the Government tell us today that it is their policy to deal with those mostly in need. We do not find that happening in Northern Ireland. Of course, the unemployment figures are disastrous. We will soon have well over 100,000 people unemployed, with 40,000 unemployed in Belfast alone.
  What amazes me is that while the Government are pursuing a policy of running down the gas industry, because they have refused to let Northern Ireland share in the natural gas from the North Sea, the workers in the gas industry who are going to lose their jobs are not to benefit in regard to redundancy pay as their counterparts in Great Britain would benefit. It has just been announced that the redundancy payment in Londonderry—a city that has more unemployed, perhaps, than any other part of Northern Ireland—will be half of what would be paid to workers in the rest of the United Kingdom. So here we have a people who are suffering terribly, and yet when it comes to payoffs they do not get parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. I want to put those matters firmly on record.
  What is more, if jobs are to be saved in Northern Ireland, they will not be saved by the policy being pursued by the Government. The indigenous firms which have battled through all the difficulties and which have good order books but which have a serious problem of cash flow are the firms that should be helped, instead of the Government pouring £90 million and more into a firm like De Lorean. I hope that the firm will not go down, because it would be a tragedy if it did fail, but I think that jobs could be saved in a better and more secure way in Northern Ireland.
  I would just underscore to the Government the seriousness of the situation. I know the Minister for Social Security knows what I am talking about, for he has been there and has seen the situation and knows that these are facts. Someone talked about realities. These are the stark realities of the situation in Northern Ireland. This Government must implement their policy of dealing with those in greatest need.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: It is significant that the last two speakers from the Government side both attacked the Government for their failure to do what they set out to do. They both made excellent points, one in the case of the people of Northern Ireland and the other—the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—in respect of children who were suffering as a result of the Government's reneging on their promise on child benefit.
  Earlier in the debate, when the Secretary of State, who has presumably now gone to Grantham, or wherever, was talking about a speech made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), he complained bitterly that the hon. Gentleman had given no indication where the

  195
  money was coming from. That is a valid point, because it is too easy, from the Opposition Benches, to ask the Government "Why not do this, or that?" when the proper answer will involve thousands of million of pounds.
  I should like to point to a few sectors where the money could easily be found. It would alleviate precisely what the debate is trying to highlight, namely the
  "increasing poverty resulting from Government policies".
  One policy that increases poverty is the assisted places scheme. It may not involve a great deal of money, but in the present economic climate it is an obscene way of advantaging the already advantaged at the direct cost to children who most need extra money—those in the maintained sector.
  The money could come by taxing the windfall profits of banks. It must be wrong for a Government's fiscal policies fortuitously to advantage a whole sector of industry, allow it to keep the money, and distribute it in higher dividends to shareholders who probably do not need it. I know of few poor people who are dependent for their support on annual bank dividends.
  A lot of money could be saved if the Government looked at the building societies. They are neither particularly sociable nor do they build anything. They own prime sites in the High Streets of our towns, when anyone who really wanted money would go to the outskirts and walk up to the second or third floor, provided that the loan was at the right price.
  A great deal too much money is being spent for no other purpose than to advantage those who are already advantaged, and the latest news today is of yet another EEC parliamentary beano, which will cost the taxpayer £250,000 and enable 35 higgledy-piggledy European Members to see what someone else is or is not doing. There is scope for saving there.
  I welcome the debate because, in common with most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I came into Parliament for the express purpose of realigning the wealth of this land. The debate is trying to do just that. We have heard from several hon. Members about the poverty trap, and I should like to give some figures that have not yet been supplied.
  The differential between a man earning £110 per week and a man earning £70 per week is £6·35 per week. When the comparison is made with a man earning £500 a week, it is found that the differential is not one-sixth, as it is with a man on £110 a week, but two-fifths—40 per cent.—compared with 16 per cent. That is exactly the sort of policy that could easily be reversed to work infinitely to the benefit of the lower-paid.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West mentioned child benefit. A 50 per cent. rise in child benefit would cost £275 million and would give the average family an extra £1 a week. To achieve the same effect for a standard-rate taxpayer by increasing the married man's allowance would cost £610 million. I asked the Treasury earlier this week what would be the saving to the country if we paid child benefit monthly in arrears. I was told that the saving would be £50 million a year. Surely at least that saving could be credited to child benefit and the benefit could rise by that amount, if not more.
  We are discussing poverty, and it is interesting to note how different people have different concepts of the meaning of the word "poverty". I asked a trade union
  196
  officer what poverty was and his answer was that it was £75 a week or less for a family with two children. I read a philosophical definition of poverty, which was
  "the lack of command over resources relative to need".
  The Supplementary Benefits Commission defines poverty as an income that does not enable people to participate in the life of the community. That is probably the best definition. The poor need an income to enable them to participate.
  Our current policy is not to keep people out of hardship and misery but to wait until they suffer it before taking action. The Secretary of State asked what the Government could do other than paying large sums in benefits. The first thing that everyone can do—the Government have no exclusive right to it—is to care. We cannot legislate for care, but we can provide a fertile atmosphere for it.
  In our society money has replaced caring. We pay people a pension and feel that we have done our job. I suggest that much rethinking will have to be done. Housing policy will have to be reviewed, because a great deal of poverty, in actual if not real terms, is occasioned by people being housed in the wrong place and in the wrong sort of house. People are housed where they need transport in order to get to work or where they need more heating than they can afford. Inevitably, either simply as a result of that or as a consequence of accident or illness, they get into debt, and when someone is in debt local authority housing policies do not consider applications for housing transfers. While practising such policies we are condemning people to everlasting poverty.
  We can help, without much cost to the nation, by gearing secondary education much more towards that aspect of unnecessary policy. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke about energy. In all the home economics syllabus in the secondary sector of our maintained education system there is little about the proper use of electricity—the economies of strip lighting as against light bulbs and the economies that can be effected by the proper use of the right heating apparatus.
  Local authorities can and will pay something towards energy conservation, but they spend little advertising what they have a statutory right to do. I mentioned at Question Time today the doubtful morality of the Government's expenditure on advertising to encourage people to buy index-linked retirement certificates but not advertising available benefits that are unclaimed because people do not know about them.
  While we are discussing poverty, the Government must not forget the new poor who will be created by their policy of denying State benefit in the first weeks of sickness. One must weep in advance for the frail man of 40 who becomes unemployed and seeks employment in a small company. That company—rightly, because it cannot afford not to do otherwise—will look at the man's health record, and if he is asthmatic or has an arthritic condition of the hip, or any other ailment, will say "We cannot employ him, because we cannot afford to pay the first weeks of his sickness benefit."
  I shall end by quoting the Prime Minister, who said:
  "For me, the heart of politics is not political philosophy. It is the people, and how they want to live their lives."
  The Prime Minister believes in choice. We know that she has a choice, and the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) know that she has a choice. I wish to ask her whether she

  197
  believes that the poor have a choice. William Cobbett said that to be poor and independent is very nearly impossible. Nothing much has changed.
  I remind the Prime Minister of something that Paul Johnson wrote before he became her great Fleet Street ally. He said:
  "The real tragedy of poverty is not suffering or degradation, but waste. Over the centuries tens of millions in this country alone have failed to realise their potentialities and make, each one of them, his or her unique contribution to the wealth and happiness of all. No form of investment is more fruitful than that which breaks the reproductive cycle of poverty."
  I believe in that. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the Opposition motion in the Lobby tonight.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Tom Benyon: I agree with much of what has been said in the debate, certainly much of what the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on the questions of the uprating of child benefits. It is an inevitable occupational hazard to speak fairly late in a debate, because much of what one was going to say has already been said. I do not believe that that matters, if the weight of opinion in the House is felt by the Minister. Perhaps I should declare an interest on child benefit, as my wife has just given birth to our fourth child.
  I should like to dispel the impression which has been given judging from one or two letters which I have received—possibly even in my own party—that child benefit is a form of soup kitchen or cash handout. That is a travesty of the truth.
  Child benefit is not a soup kitchen. It was designed to place cash in the pockets of the mother who needs it most, so that she can look after her children. It gives a tax cut to the poorest families in the land, and is the surest way of alleviating the poverty trap or the "Why work?" syndrome. We inveighed against those inequities before the election in May 1979. Since that date, unfortunately, the poverty trap has become worse. Now—to give one example out of many—a couple with four children are better off earning £55 than £95 a week, in certain circumstances.
  In Opposition the Minister described the poverty trap as devastating and a real blot on the face of the tax and welfare system. I know that he still believes that. I also know that he believes that the uprating of child benefit is one of the best ways to close the poverty trap. I wish him well in his battle against his Treasury colleagues.
  Unfortunately, last time child benefit was uprated the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided not to face the issue entirely, which will make it harder for him this time. This time he will need to add 95p to the value of child benefit to return it to its former level. That is vital. We have an obligation to raise child benefit in line with other personal allowances. No other tax allowance should be given greater priority than child benefit. If personal allowances are not to be raised in line with inflation, child benefit should be an exception to that.
  The cost of uprating child benefit will be about £190 million. Each of us has his own pet method of how that money should be found. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that there is no point talking about
  198
  an increase in public expenditure without giving an indication that one has thought about how the additional money should be raised.
  Substantial savings can be made through the monthly payment of child benefit—which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely also advocated—and the introduction of the autocredit transfer system. There will be savings on supplementary benefit, if child benefit is uprated, and further savings on the cost of families who have to go into care because they cannot cope with the burdens of poverty. The balance might be procured from uprating tobacco tax—each of us has our favourite, and that is mine.
  The qualification "where resources permit" must be accepted. However, we were talking about improving the 1979 position of the disabled in "The Right Approach". No doubt, when resources permit, we shall bring forward policies that might benefit the disabled. However, it would be nice if the Government could undertake a Green Paper of the piecemeal benefits given to the disabled, to see how they could be rationalised into a disability pension which might be given as a right, as opposed to the claimant having to request the benefit being cast in the role of supplicant. Currently, applicants are compelled to apply for benefits which depend on the cause of his disability. For example, someone who is disabled at birth will receive less pension than someone who is disabled at work.
  To date, the official response to a request for a Green Paper is that the hopes of the disabled might be raised unfairly. That is rubbish. We raised the expectations of the disabled in "The Right Approach" and in our manifesto. Disabled persons are not daft. They are as alert to the present economic climate as are the rest of the population. No doubt they realise that no improvement can be expected from the Government until there are available resources. However, such a Green Paper would at least give some credibility to the idea that the Government are conscious that there are problems to be solved.
  The disabled face many problems. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that one does ill for any cause by overstating the case, or by trying to pretend, on a ping-pong basis, that until May 1979 everything was wonderful and now everything is appalling. Nothing is as simple as that. At the moment, the disabled and the unemployed face horrendous problems. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I outline some of the problems facing the disabled and the unemployed, many of which have arisen since May 1979.
  There was the uplift in VAT in June 1979 and the uprating of invalidity benefit, which came only in November 1979. Prescription charges have increased five times, and not all invalidity pensioners qualify for free prescriptions. Electricity costs have spiralled. An ominous statistic that I saw recently in New Society on 8 September 1980 was that disconnections in London have doubled in the past year. A number of people simply will not pay, but in that bleak statistic will be included others who cannot pay. I have no reason to suppose that the disabled unemployed are not among them. Local authorities are cutting services that will be missed by the disabled.
  Unemployment is at an all-time high. The disabled will be the last in line to be employed, especially as many employers are wary about the plans to shift on to them responsibility for payment of short-term sickness benefit. One cannot be surprised if they regard disabled applicants

  199
  with some suspicion in such circumstances. It is not surprising that the unemployment rate for the disabled is double that for those without disability.
  Many unemployed disabled are in a "Catch 22" situation. If they work, even part-time, they are likely to lose their invalidity pension. Then, of course, invalidity benefit is being cut by 5 per cent., which is a great problem for them. They cannot get full-time work, and part-time work does not provide a living wage. If they do part-time work they are likely to lose all their sources of income. The Manpower Services Commission can help to set up in small businesses only those with physical disabilities. I believe that the mentally handicapped do not qualify. A constituent of mine is in that precise position.
  Also, invalidity pensioners do not qualify for free school meals for their children. Lastly, as has been stated several times, charities are suffering sorely from the problems created by VAT. It would be absurd to suggest that all those problems have occurred in the past 18 months, but I mention them to give an indication of the work yet to be done.
  I do not know what it is like to be seriously handicapped, although I am quite deaf. Occasionally, arrogantly, one imagines that one can understand what certain disabilities must be like. However, I am sure that it is not possible to understand the problems of others' disabilities. A man who is deaf cannot imagine what it is like to suffer a nervous breakdown. A deaf woman cannot imagine what multiple sclerosis is like. We might think that we know, but the reality is that we do not. The disability is unique to the sufferer. Each person who is disabled lives with his own problem, which no one else can fully understand.
  In the same way, short of genius, it is impossible for a man who is well-off to understand poverty. I make no pretence of being able to appreciate fully the problems that face the unemployed disabled. It would be hypocrisy for me to pretend to do so. All that the Government can do is to provide services and benefits, remembering as we do so that we are dealing with people and not statistics.
  I note with interest that the debate is about poverty. It is easier to talk about poverty than about the poor; it is easier to argue about the state of unemployment than about the unemployed. It is often a trap to believe that the theories of abstract ideas are things in themselves. We must reorganise benefits for the disabled without patronising them. They do not want our sympathy. They wish to lead full lives, integrated in the community. A Government can do only so much, in a co-ordinated effort with the disabled, their families, local authorities and voluntary organisations.
  It must be a sustained programme of reform. It would be too easy to indulge in a vigorous one-off demonstration of concern in this the International Year of Disabled People. It would be like a brief national outpouring of concern for the victims of remote foreign earthquakes—a quick payment to salve our national conscience and assuage our guilt at having done so little in the past, and then "Let's get on with the next item on the agenda."
  The problems of the disabled, the unemployed and the poor will not go away. There are no easy solutions for this or any Government. They cannot sweep the problems away year after year, hoping that they will be forgotten. It is profoundly depressing that the position of the disabled
  200
  unemployed has grown worse in the past year. However, I am optimistic that the Government will respond to the challenge, which is clearly our overriding duty, and will place the disabled unemployed as our highest social priority.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: We have proved this afternoon that the Government's policies are responsible for increasing poverty. In an excellently researched book, Professor Townsend recently pointed out that 26 per cent. of our population—about 14 million people—could be said to be living in poverty. Hackney bears out what Professor Townsend said and what we have said. The Government are responsible for increasing poverty.
  I wish to say a few words about the economics of poverty. I make my remarks on the basis of information that I have received from the many hundreds who visit my advice centre and from the thousands of letters that I receive as a Member of Parliament, and on the evidence that is only too obvious in my area. Anyone can see the obvious poverty of an area that has a high percentage of old-age pensioners and an absence of young people because they have left the area. We now have about 18,000 people on housing waiting lists, and hundreds of homeless temporarily in bed and breakfast accommodation. People are squatting in fairly large numbers. We have over 5,000 single-parent families, with all their problems. I challenge the libel that they drink or gamble away then-child benefit. They use it to try to eke out their poverty stricken existence. Hackney has the highest infant mortality rate in Britain and a high number of mentally ill people, the causes being mainly poverty and distress. Massive gas and electricity bills are continually brought to me. They are debts owed by the unemployed and by people on social security.
  Hackney is an area where people have some of the lowest incomes in London, with mass unemployment and no investment. The advertisements on one page of the local paper indicate the poverty—18 jumble sales are advertised for one weekend. That is the way that my constituents have to provide for their needs. They receive social security as a right and not because they are scroungers. The Government are making the situation worse by their policies and their inability to solve the problems of inflation. Their taxation policies go against working people and the unemployed, as do their cuts in housing, hospitals, schools, social services, health, and so on.
  "Inequalities in Health" has been referred to. On the first page the Secretary of State for Social Services states that
  "there is … little sign of health inequalities in Britain actually diminishing and, in some cases, they may be increasing. It will be seen that the Group has reached the view that the causes of health inequalities are so deep rooted that only a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure is capable of altering the pattern."
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman understands that. He continues:
  "I must make it clear that additional expenditure on the scale that could result from the report's recommendations—the amount involved could be upwards of £2 billion a year"—
  that is a measure of the neglect of the people in Britain, £2,000 million a year—

  201
  "is quite unrealistic in present or any forseeable economic circumstances … I cannot, therefore, endorse the Group's recommendations."
  That is an indication of the poverty being suffered by people in Britain.
  The Government attack local authorities. They attacked Hackney for alleged overspending when it tried to solve the deplorable social problems of poverty. The council faces massive rate burdens and its tenants face massive rent increases. Those are burdens on an already impoverished community, yet that area adjoins the City of London, whose banks, insurance companies and multinational headquarters are bursting at the seams with wealth. The comparison between those two areas exemplifies Britain's problems—a nation of the very rich and the very poor, the "haves" and the "have nots"—Disraeli's two nations.
  That position is brought out sharply in the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, which was published in eight volumes. When the report was published, more than 23 million people earned less than £3,000 a year, yet about 17,500 people earned up to £12,000 per year, or four times as much. Other people—more than 4,000—earned 17 times as much, namely, up to £50,000 per year. Others were receiving more than £100,000 per year. The figures do not include those who receive unearned income from investments. That disparity of incomes in Britain causes the massive deep-seated problem of poverty.
  The Hackney Gazette said in a recent editorial:
  "Nothing very surprising in the new report on Hackney which predicts even more vandalism and violence in an area that was once renowned for the closeness of its down-at-heel community.
  Unfortunately, those of us who live and work in Hackney have been only too aware for many years of the gradually increasing levels of violence and wanton destruction…
  Their conclusion is that while nothing will bring back the Hackney of pre-war days, it would be inviting trouble if central government does not allocate resources to halt the decline and to maintain the fabric of Hackney."
  Those are the views of the local press, which speaks on behalf of the local people.
  The Minister asked where the money would come from. Let me be emphatic about this. One has the illusion that Britain is broke. This is a wealthy country. It is the second wealthiest country in the world. It is the second largest investor overseas—second only to the United States. Currently the gross national product is running at a rate of £200,000 million. That is a considerable amount of wealth and it is going into the pockets of those whom the Government truly represent.
  This week The Sunday Times estimated the nation's reserves at $27½ billion—in other words, $15 billion net of all debts. The money is there to be used—if the Government have the will to use it—in the interests of the people of Britain. This country has a considerable amount of wealth, which should be used to solve the problems of poverty. The TUC has made it clear how the problems can be solved, namely, through a £6 billion budget boost—a £600 million increase for State industry, £710 million for a manpower programme to provide 520,000 jobs, £250 million for private industry, £750 million for higher pensions, £500 million for education and £300 million for school meals and milk. The money could come from the sources to which I have referred. All that would help those who suffer from increasing poverty.
  202
  The only solution to the problem of poverty is the removal of this Government, who are responsible for the poverty, and the election of a Labour Government who will create a new type of society in Britain.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I want to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts), who quoted One or two novel statistics. The first and perhaps most surprising remark was that the number of jumble sales that take place in his constituency is a valuable indicator of the level of poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), who takes a considerable interest in these matters, is reputed to clothe himself entirely from jumble sales. Perhaps optimistically, I place another interpretation on the upsurge of jumble sales in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is that those marvellous events are usually organised by Conservative women, to whom I shall refer later. No doubt the Conservative women of Hackney are being spurred into great activity in an attempt to remove the hon. Gentleman from the seat that he now occupies.
  Other statistics that he not surprisingly used, in view of his position before he entered the House, were those put forward by the TUC. The hon. Gentleman is a Member to whom the House should now listen with special attention. His past position in the TUC and his present contacts there place him in an important position in the Labour Party as it is today. We must listen with great care and attention to the figures that he puts forward. I do not know where he obtained some of his figures. He said that Britain was the second wealthiest nation in the world. He then suggested that an expenditure of £6 billion should be undertaken. Presumably, he feels that that money can be obtained simply by confiscating wealth from the rich. I do not think that that statement merits serious consideration by the House.
  I wish to confine my remarks principally to the question of child benefit and the need further to consider it. First, I want to say a few words about the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) about a Green Paper on the disabled. I support such a move, especially in the International Year of Disabled People. Returning to the question of poverty, and those affected by it, I recall asking a millionaire acquaintance why he had joined the Labour Party. The reason that he gave, which seemed convincing, was that as a young man he remembered seeing children, with no shoes on their feet, and suffering from rickets, running around in the streets of our major towns.
  The first fact that we ought to establish today, in order to put the problem into perspective, is that poverty on that scale has now been eradicated and what we are now talking about is relative poverty in a State of relative affluence. Anyone who smiles at that need only glance at the problems faced by the one-third of the world that we know as the Third world. I have no doubt that the people of the Third world would regard as affluence what we in this country choose to regard as poverty, though I hasten to add that I do not make that point in order to minimise the problems of the relative poverty that we face in this country.
  I turn now to the basic thrust of Government policy and the difficult decisions that they have to take. My hon.

  203
  Friend the Member for Somerset, North brough out the essential point to be borne in mind, that over the past decades expenditure on our social services has increased at three times the rate of growth in the creation of wealth. I believe that that figure is not disputed on either side of the House. I realise that there are such members as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington who believe that there is a crock of gold somewhere that can simply be confiscated and handed out, but I think that, apart from the small minority of hon. Members who take that view, it is generally recognised in the House that it is necessary to look to the business of creating wealth.
  It is my contention that while that is being done, and while the nation faces its present difficulties, the Conservative Party, if it looks to its origins and its basic beliefs, is particularly well suited to operate with humanity and imagination a policy directed to the necessary creation of wealth. Although it is true that the Tory Party has no dogma, I believe that it has always attempted to do what seems best at the time. That is no bad philosophy in the context of problems such as those that we face today. Without detaining the House for long, since I know that others wish to speak I shall expand a little on what I mean.
  I believe that in two areas already the Government have begun to show that at the edges they are prepared to intervene against what the Opposition take to be the party's dogma—to intervene to help those who are in difficulty. I refer, of course, to the considerable expansion that has rightly taken place in the youth opportunities programme for helping the younger unemployed. Moreover, on industrial policy, I refer to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in which she referred to "constructive intervention". Many of us hope that in the coming months and years the Government will be building on that concept in order to intervene in the economy not only through purchasing policy but through Government investment such as that which took place in Inmos, in order to help to create more employment opportunities.
  My first theme, therefore, is that a Conservative Government are in a position ideologically to make decisions of that kind to help in areas of need when they arise. There is no ideological inhibition restraining us from so doing.
  Having mentioned industrial and employment policy, I turn next to social policy and pick up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who referred to an article published by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten). The title of that article asks a question:
  "One Nation at the Hustings—Two Nations in reality?"
  Those of us who take an interest in Tory social policy believe that at the core of that policy must be help and support for the family. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said in his article:
  "The great debate in the Tory Party today on social policy should be centred on how we can help the family in all its different manifestations".
  As my right hon. Friend knows, many of us on the Conservative Benches still regard that as a central issue. We believe that he is at one with us in that belief. But we are worried that that central part of our policy may be beginning to slip away from us, and we very much hope that when, as he says he must do now, he enters into
  204
  purdah with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will defend as vigorously as he can that central core of Conservative social policy, which must be the maintenance of the family.
  Those of us on the Conservative Benches who press for child benefit do so not only in the confidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State is behind us and supporting us, as we know he is, but in the knowledge of what was said in the letter from the Chancellor to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, which we now refer to as the "Waldegrave letter". In that letter my right hon. and learned Friend said that he had
  "no intention of going back on our earlier policy on child benefit."
  We believe, therefore, that we have the powerful combination, as I may so call it, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on our side, but, as if that were not enough, we have with us the Conservative Women's National Advisory Council. I assure hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that there is perhaps no organisation more powerful or more influential in the Conservative Party than that council. It has not only done a great deal of work on child benefit but has expressed itself as
  "deeply concerned about child benefit and the heavier financial burdens which will fall upon families with children in 1980".
  Therefore, those of us who advance this case believe that we have good allies, and we believe that the Government wish to do what we are advocating.
  There are two general points to be made about child benefit. I acknowledge that all hon. Members now in the Chamber who take an interest in these matters will be well aware of them, but they are points that bear repetition, because they are not well understood outside. For example, whenever I make a speech about child benefit I find that it is not a popular issue in the country. One receives a lot of letters from old-age pensioners, from the disabled and from all manner of people, who ask "What are you doing?". The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred in this context to an article in a Scottish newspaper written by one of my hon. Friends. I think, therefore, that the two basic points that I am about to make bear repetition, since it is important that people generally understand this matter.
  Child benefit was introduced to take the place of the old child tax allowances. The child tax allowances were in no way regarded as a social service. They were there to achieve some sort of equity at all income levels for families with children as compared to families without children. That is the first fact to be established. This is not a social service handout. In a sense, it is another fiscal or tax weapon.
  The second point to be made—again, I do not wish to overstate it, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) has done a great deal of work on it—is one that those who support the Conservative Party would certainly believe to be important, and I hope that many who support the Labour Party would take the same view. Child benefit helps the person who is in work, as opposed to the person who is unemployed. It is important to stress that for every £1 that is paid to a person out of work £1 is deducted from any unemployment or supplementary benefit that that person receives. That is an important point for people to understand.
  The third aspect of child benefit to be emphasised is that it is what is referred to as an indiscriminate benefit. It is

  205
  collected by the very rich and the very poor. I am in two minds about this. On the one hand, I think that there are significant advantages in paying it to everybody, since that upholds the principle that it is the old child tax allowance, and there is considerable benefit to be derived from that. If in his discussions with the Chancellor my right hon. Friend fights, as I am sure he will, to uprate child benefit this year and he finds it necessary that those who pay tax above the standard rate should pay tax on their child benefit, I should not regard that as a retrograde or offensive step. The sum involved is about £40 million, which in the context of the total expended on child benefit may sound trifling. It is, nevertheless, a contribution.
  In advocating an increase in child benefit the next question that we have to ask is whether the family is slipping behind other sectors of the population. The answer to that must be an unqualified "Yes". Some of my hon. Friends referred to statistics supplied by the Child Poverty Action Group. I would add one more to them, namely, that in the last two decades the proportion of income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a childless couple on three-quarters average earnings has increased by 122 per cent., whereas the proportion paid by a family with two children, one under 11 and one over 1, has increased by 382 per cent.—about three times as much. That is how the position of families is being steadily eroded.
  It is worth noting that since the Government have been in office—I am referring to the years 1978–82—the tax burden for a childless couple has increased by 1·3 per cent., whereas for the family on three-quarters average earnings with two children it has increased by 11·6 per cent. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary looks rather surprised. The statistics that I am now using were part of the memorandum presented by the Child Poverty Action Group.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, by whatever yardstick one chooses to measure that—whether by tax-free income, the tax break-even point, or changes in net disposable income—the position of families vis-a-vis single people has steadily been eroded. He effectively made the point that low income families above all suffer from inflation. That is another point that we have to bear in mind. Another example is the increase in school meals since April 1979. When the Government came to office the price of a school meal was 25p. The average price of today's school meal is 45p. Higher fuel bills and grants for school uniforms and children's clothing are being cut back. Those are the factors that affect low-income families. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West and for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) gave figures that I do not wish to repeat. It is worth reminding ourselves and the nation that a couple with two children are still better off earning £55 than if they earn £75. A couple with four children are better off earning £55 than £95. That is a point that bears repetition.
  Those of us who are concerned about this problem have three options to offer to the Government. The first and perhaps the most important is that child benefit should be increased by 95p. That is the figure needed to restore child benefit to the level at which it stood in April 1979. On the other hand, if one assumes that the personal tax allowance will be increased in line with the Lawson-Rooker-Wise amendment, that would be satisfactory. That would involve an increase in child benefit of approximately 70p. Some of my hon. Friends and I would be in difficulty if
  206
  the increase in child benefit announced this year by my right hon. and learned Friend fell below 50p, which is the absolute bare minimum at which it would retain its present value.
  What is the cost of all this? The cost of a 95p increase in a full tax year would be £522 million. The cost of a 70p increase would be £385 million. The cost of a 50p increase would be £275 million. For the year 1981–82 it would be significantly less than that, because the cost falls in only part of the financial year.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) made the point that when looking at this kind of expenditure one must bear in mind the cost-effectiveness of child benefit. I shall suggest ways in which the extra expenditure could be paid for. As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely rightly said, a 50p increase in child benefit as a bare minimum would mean, for a family with two children, £1 per week. To achieve the same effect by altering the standard rate of tax by increasing the married man's tax allowance would cost £610 million. That has an added disadvantage, which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely did not mention. When the tax threshold is moved it does not affect the very poor, because they are not in the tax net anyway. The reason why we stress this is not only its cost-effectiveness; it is that if one tries to do it through the tax allowance it leaves out altogether the very poor.
  The Opposition are quick to suggest that the Government should make this expenditure, but they are not quite so quick to suggest how it may be financed. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made suggestions. However, he is a smash-and-grab merchant, who believes that there are pots of gold somewhere to grab and hand out. Conservative Members have a responsibility to make suggestions on how this could be financed.
  I shall confine myself to my private hobby-horses. The first obvious suggestion is to increase the revenue tax on alcohol and tobacco. From those two items alone, by quite modest rises of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. as much as £1 billion could and should be raised in the coming Budget for many other reasons. That alone would finance a rise in child benefit sufficent to bring it back to the April 1979 level.
  Another policy that I have advocated in the past—I am delighted to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are not entirely opposed to it—is a windfall profits tax on the banks. That is dangerous territory for a Conservative Party, but we are entitled to say that a great deal of the interest on dead money that sits in clearing banks accrues as extra profit as a result of the increase in minimum lending rate. Those are not profits in the true sense of the word. They are not gained by business acumen and expertise. In the real sense of the word they are windfall profits. I should have no objection if my right hon. and learned Friend found it necessary to lay his hands on £30 million, £40 million or £50 million-worth of those profits. But that is a one-off tax, which will not provide a continuing income for any Government because we all expect the minimum lending rate to come down shortly. Such a tax could be operated only when minimum lending rate was in excess of 10 per cent.
  My other point concerns capital taxes. Many of my hon. Friends have pressed hard for my right hon. and learned Friend to do something about capital transfer tax and other capital taxes. I do not think that there can be a

  207
  single Conservative Member who does not believe that to be important. Equally, many of us would say that we should not be looking at capital taxes when we have serious problems of poverty and need among families throughout the country. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will not feel it necessary to do anything at all about capital taxes this year.
  A network of tax allowances has built up. One of the side arguments in favour of child benefit is that it is a step towards sorting out the nightmare of tax benefits that stretch not only to many companies, for which taxes have become virtually voluntary, but down the system to people applying for tax relief at the DHSS. In my constituency elderly people sit at a counter and negotiate with the clerk about whether they are to be given an allowance to buy blankets, gloves or a winter coat. That has arisen not from the policies of a particular party but from our desire to tailor-make social benefits to individuals. That system of individual benefits no longer stands up, good though the sentiments behind it are. We must move towards phasing out the network of tax reliefs at all levels.
  With that in mind, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not feel it necessary to raise the threshold on mortgage relief. I hope that he will leave it at its present level, which will provide a considerable saving.
  I turn to the question of tax thresholds and the Lawson-Rooker-Wise amendment. If the Government believe it necessary to raise the tax thresholds, so be it. However, in the difficult times that we face and the sacrifices that we are asking people to make, this is not the time to lower the tax thresholds at the top end. There is no justification for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) argued that by doing so the Government would index-link the very wealthy against inflation. If there is anybody who needs to be protected from inflation it is the very poor, not the very wealthy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said:
  "It is possible to argue that inflation hits the poorest hardest and that the poorest have the least means of avoiding the effects of inflation. The same argument cannot be extended to the rich." [Official Report, 3 June 1980; Vol. 985 c. 1347.]
  Even if tax thresholds are to be lowered at the lower band I hope that it will not be felt necessary at this juncture to do so at the top end.
  We are asking the Secretary of State to reaffirm the Government's belief in child benefit and to reaffirm what we believe to be the central core of this Government's social policy. We are asking him to ensure that child benefit does not become, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, another addition to the list of "also rans". If he does what we ask him my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be restating a coherent social policy, around which we can unite and ask the country to face the difficult sacrifices that are facing it.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I wish to make only two comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). He compared the people of the Third world with the poor in Britain. Most of my hon. Friends will take that point. However, his comparison is a little hypocritical for a member of the
  208
  Conservative Party, which is increasing poverty in this country and helping to make the appalling poverty in the Third world even worse by its aid programmes, trade policies and education policies.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxton: No. The hon. Gentleman took a long time with his speech.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: What about import controls?
  Mr. Maxton: Import controls would be selective and would not necessarily improve the position of the poor.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the family was at the core of the Conservative Government's social policy. Family life is eroded by unemployment. Anybody who has seen unemployment in poor areas knows of the psychological degredation felt by the breadwinner when he loses his job. It can break up a family and make family life more difficult. When Conservative Members talk about the family they should remember that violence, for instance, is more likely in a family where there is unemployment. In a household where there is unemployment, children are more likely to be taken into care. The statistics in Strathclyde region certainly bear that out.
  Some Government Members, particularly the Secretary of State, should visit my constituency if they want to see what is happening to the poorer people. In my constituency there is a large housing scheme with a population of 38,000. It is one of the largest public housing schemes in Europe. Even before 1979—and I am being honest—the levels of unemployment and multi-deprivation were far too high. Since then, unemployment and deprivation have reached disastrous levels. It will not be long before they reach crisis levels.
  It is difficult for me to obtain unemployment figures for that housing scheme. It is a clearly recognised community, but it has no unemployment benefit office, no jobcentre and no DHSS office. People who have to register as unemployed spend about 5 per cent. of their incomes on travelling to register for work. The Government have already cut their incomes by not raising the levels of benefit by the full amount of inflation. That should not be tolerated.
  I understand that unemployment is running at about 25 per cent. in the scheme as a whole. That is probably a conservative figure if one takes into account the number of people on short-time work and the number of women who have been employed but who have not registered. In certain pockets of the scheme with populations of 9,000 or 10,000 unemployment is probably over 50 per cent.
  The poverty effects of the Government's actions in cutting unemployment benefit are seen most clearly in such areas. The problems will be increased with the disapperance of the earning-related supplement.
  Unemployment and social security benefits have always been on the breadline. In such circumstances people have to be saints in terms of patience and abstinence. They have to have the financial skill of chartered accountants in order to live and maintain a basic standard. They live on the breadline. If they are not to get into debt, they cannot afford the occasionl packet of cigarettes or the occasional pint of beer or even take their kids to the cinema. This Government are making their plight even worse.

  209
  The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that old-age pensions and some other benefits, but not unemployment benefit, are going up with inflation.
  As the hon. Member for Watford said, inflation hits the poorest hardest. This Government's direct policies have made inflation harder for the poorest than for the rest of the community. The Government have insisted that local authorities put up rents way above the current level of inflation. They have insisted that the Gas Council and the electricity boards put up their prices way above the level of inflation.
  The Government have also cut the special needs payment for clothing from supplementary benefits. With regard to food, as everyone knows, the poorer a person is the more he pays, and the more he pays for his food the poorer he is. Poor people cannot afford to shop at the supermarkets, because normally there is no big supermarket in the area in which they live. They do not have a car to transport large amounts of produce bought in bulk, and even if they have a car they do not have a freezer in which to store the food. All the benefits of low pricing in the hypermarkets and the advance of the freezer are lost to the poorest in our community. Therefore, they have to shop in the corner shops where the average prices are at least 15 per cent. higher than in the supermarkets. The poor are being hit harder by inflation. Even with inflation-proofing—in many areas the Government have not implemented that—they are being hardest hit.
  I see the effects of increasing unemployment and social deprivation in my constituency. There is no doubt that more people are being disconnected from electricity supplies. That creates enormous risks, not simply in terms of hypothermia but in terms of direct physical risks to young children whose families are having to use oil heaters and candles. For young children under the age of 5, the risks in that sort of environment are enormous. Glasgow has one of the highest fire risks in the whole of Britain.
  The number of children that have been taken into care as a result of unemployment is increasing. Vandalism is increasing. Education is being cut. It is not simply a matter of what is being paid to the poor. The back-up services on which they rely are being cut by local authorities. The home-help services and the social work back-up services are also being cut, or at best they are being maintained at the same level, and with increasing unemployment that means a real cut. Tenants are facing massive rent and rate increases. Conservatives tend to forget that council house tenants pay rates. In Glasgow, the district authority is saying that it will not be able to maintain its housing stock at the present level in the current financial year. It is not a matter of increasing or improving standards, redeveloping houses or building new houses for the old and disabled, but simply a matter of maintaining them at their present level. That cannot be done, because of Government cutbacks.
  Repairs on housing will not be carried out, so the people who are already poor will suffer even more. Those people are poor and they are getting poorer. They are also being hounded by fraud squads that have been established by the Government. I should not like anyone to think that that is not happening. At my surgery, people have already complained about the way in which investigations are being carried out. They are carried out on pure speculation. First, an anonymous phone call seems to be the greatest source of information for the investigators. Secondly, they see people in their working clothes.
  210
  Anyone who knows working class areas knows that jeans and an anorak are common uniform, whether a person is unemployed, walking the streets because he has a bad back, on invalidity benefit, or at work.
  I know of one case where it was clear—although there may be a difference in the wording of the interview that took place—that a person was intimidated into coming off sickness benefit. He was told that there was some suspicion that he was working. There was little or no evidence, but the investigator told him that he believed that he had been working since September and that the Department would have to be repaid £1,000. He was told that if he could not pay £1,000, a warrant sale—as it is known in Scotland—would have to be carried out on his property and household chattels, and that he might be prosecuted. One can imagine that in those circumstances the man signed himself off sickness benefit for one short weekend. I assure the House that he is now back on sickness benefit, and the Department made some sort of apology for what happened. That sort of thing is happening; I have heard of similar cases.
  A skilled motor mechanic—many skilled motor mechanics are unemployed in the West of Scotland—who is fit, healthy and employed for more than four months is in trouble. He is likely to be investigated by fraud squads, probably on three different occasions and on three different counts. That goes against every principle of British justice. As soon as the Department becomes suspicious, it stops payment. It acts as investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge in its own cause. Even if the appeal takes only three or four weeks, a family is without money for that period, and it is not only on the poverty level but is in penury, and has to survive by begging from the social services department. That sort of activity by the DHSS is increasing.
  Some Labour Members have been accused of scaremongering when they say that there will be an increase in violence on the streets. I do not think that that will happen in the short term, but we shall see a genuine threat to democracy. Elected members of local government—particularly in my party—are becoming increasingly frustrated because they, who have been elected, are unable to carry out the policies on which they were elected. In some cases they are having to take the blame for carrying out this Government's policies. In those circumstances, the ability to encourage people to stand for a local position must be eroded. The poor in my area will not suddenly start storming the barricades, but they are becoming increasingly apathetic. They no longer believe that local authorities or the Government can do anything for them.
  There is real danger to democracy, not necessarily from violence on the streets but from apathy on the part of people who no longer believe that democracy works for them. It is happening in many areas where unemployment is at the level of that in my constituency. It is my fear that democracy is being threatened by increasing poverty.
  Why are the Government doing it? There is little logical sense in their economic case. They are not solving the economic problems, and in the long run they are not solving the problems of inflation. It seems increasingly that what they are trying to obtain by their policies is a subservient working class that will be able to give them cheap labour for their friends and enable them to become even wealthier.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: The motion in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and others is about poverty. Because it seeks to list some of the groups to which the term "poor" may be applied, the debate has tended to concentrate on the problems of individual disadvantaged groups in our society. If, at this late hour, I do not repeat the list and add my own strength of feeling to the problems that have been described for such groups as the disabled, the unemployed, families on low wages and those with sizeable families to keep on small incomes, it is not because I do not feel as strongly as do my hon. Friends or Labour Members, but because I feel that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), when he spoke about what is poverty and what poverty means, introduced a new perspective into the debate.
  I shall identify a group that is slightly different from those that have been spoken about. It is a group that is additional—I am not putting it forward as an alternative—to those that have been identified.
  The groups identified in the motion, which was moved by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), might be called the visible poor. They are groups that are recognisable. We know of them because they often have vocal advocates. They have organisations that speak on their behalf, or they are strongly organised themselves. They organise demonstrations. These are the visible poor, whose needs are regularly drawn to our attention and about whose needs there is little doubt. Nevertheless, they are not the only people in our society who are suffering from the relative poverty to which we are referring. Absolute poverty in the world-wide sense, or historical sense, does not now exist in Britain.
  At the very end of his speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said—I hope that I am not misquoting him—that the Government should take special care of innocent victims of inflation. I identify a group of people whom I describe as the invisible poor, or the new poor, and who are the innocent victims of inflation. They are all relatively poor. They are poor relative to those who live round about them. They are relatively poor in terms of their expectations during their working lives.
  I am talking about those who saved while they were at work and who by their own thrift and self-denial expected a relatively comfortable standard of living during the years after their retirement. I add to that group a section of society that is often made up of women, although not entirely, who have given up career and marriage prospects to look after elderly parents. During the time that their parents are alive, and sometimes after their death, these people, very often women, and especially single women, suffer from the relative poverty to which I have referred.
  In many instances the members of this group receive State benefits. Certainly many of them are eligible for old-age pensions. Their additional income comes from their savings, perhaps from small pensions, which may have been eroded by inflation. I take issue with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely when he says that none of the poor depend upon investment income. I think that he was talking about investment in banks, but many of those who are relatively poor have placed their savings in fixed interest accounts and are dependent upon small investment incomes that have been gravely eroded by inflation.
  Those people are the new poor. They are the invisible poor, because they do not allow their poverty to show.
  212
  They do not appear down-at-heel. They do not demonstrate. They do not draw attention to the problems that they face. To my mind, that makes them the more deserving. They should be identified within our society, the burdens that they face should be recognised, and our efforts should be developed to try to help them. Their problems are sometimes referred to in a slightly sneering manner as "genteel" poverty. I believe that poverty of that kind should excite our admiration, in that there are people who live on very small incomes but manage nevertheless to maintain a respectable front to the world. They manage to retain their pride and to make sure that they do not draw the attention of the world to their problems.
  Often, these people are the contributors to our society. When they go along to luncheon clubs for the elderly, for example, often it is not so much to receive a lunch as to organise the function itself. Very often, they are the stalwarts of voluntary and charitable organisations. Certainly, the Conservative Party could not go on for very long without the selfless services of people in that category. These people are the contributors to society. They make very small claims on the social services. They may receive their rate rebates, but, they make few claims upon society as a whole. Their relative poverty shows in the fact that their houses become shabbier and they are able to make fewer bus journeys to go to clubs and societies, where they make a positive contribution for their friends, their neighbours and society in general.
  All too often, I fear, it means that these people may be suffering as much from restrictions of diet and heating as those who have lower incomes but who have lower outgoings. They are people often left in larger houses, which are difficult to maintain, extremely difficult to heat and require a great deal of expenditure. They therefore find themselves forced to cut down on the essentials of life in order to maintain the standards that they had hoped to be able to maintain in their retirement years without the kind of sacrifice that they have to make today.
  I wish to refer to a matter which perhaps has not had all the attention that it might have had in the debate, namely, the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. It deserves a great deal of support. It does not cut directly across the original motion, although the wording may appear so to do. It addresses itself to the broad national problem rather than to the difficulties of individual groups. Opposition Members may laugh, but I do not see this as a matter for levity. It should have the serious attention of all hon. Members, so that we may identify the problems, and so that the people who are the subject of the debate may feel that they are receiving the serious consideration that they deserve.
  The groups to which I have referred will not be greatly helped by minor changes in the social security system. By varying individual benefits, one may indeed help particular groups. Clearly, families with children are greatly helped if one increases child benefit. The people to whom I am referrng are not likely to be helped by this kind of project, nor will they be helped by the grandiose proposals put forward yesterday by the TUC for £6·2 billion to be spent to rejuvenate the economy. In the short run, that would undoubtedly help some of the groups that have been identified today, but in the longer term it would once again fuel the fire of inflation.
  The people on whose behalf I have been speaking are those who have suffered most from inflation. They are

  213
  people on small, relatively fixed incomes. They have no way of protecting themselves against inflation in the way that the rich can—on that I agree with Labour Members—and as some poorer groups can. The poorer groups are protected by powerful vocal groups outside this House, which can influence hon. Members. The group to which I am referring depends entirely upon the success of the Government's policies. In 1979 they voted for a Conservative Government because they believed that that was the most likely way to do two things: first, to tackle inflation, and, secondly, to cut direct taxation, particularly by raising the thresholds at which direct taxation affected their relatively small incomes.
  Those who voted for the Government on that basis will never forgive us if, after the sacrifices that they have made, the Government lose their nerve and back off from their basic priority. The Government were elected on one clear and absolute priority—to fight inflation. They ought to be given a great deal more credit for the success that they have achieved. Inflation has already come down to single figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It has come down rapidly.
  Labour Members who served on the Committee that considered the Social Security (No. 2) Bill will recall that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who led for the Labour Party, said that we should not raise benefits by only I6½ per cent, as the level of inflation could not possibly be down to that level by November. That was refuted at the time, both by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We were right. The rate of inflation went down to 16 per cent, in November.
  Mr. Race: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman's laughter has been his contribution.
  The Government's programme for the reduction of inflation is on target. This is the only way in which the new poor will be helped. The Opposition's motion is ill-judged and ill-timed. Therefore, I am directly opposed to it. I enthusiastically endorse the amendment, because therein lies the hope for the new poor, the invisible poor and those who need the support and help of all sections of the House.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: If it has not done anything else, the Opposition's motion has given well-known wets in the Conservative Party the opportunity to come out of the woodwork and try to salvage some of the social policies that they believe in. Those policies seem to be ignored by the Prime Minister and her Cabinet. I understand that the Prime Minister is unwilling to listen to the CBI, the TUC or others who regret the vicious and unfeeling nature of her policies. The right hon. Lady and her Government are not likely to listen to their own Back Benchers. She considers them to be heretics.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) spoke about the new poor. Perhaps I should describe them as the poor rich or the genteel poor rich. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North is having trouble with members of his Conservative association. They are beginning to realise that the Government's policies also hit them. They are not making as much money and are not as affluent as they had
  214
  anticipated they would be when they voted Conservative and decided to work for the Conservative Party in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is a strange note to introduce into a debate on poverty.
  I turn to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North's hon. Friends, who are obviously more on the Left of the Conservative Party. Led by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), and with the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) bringing up the rear in defence of his marginal seat, those hon. Members made a very good case for increasing child benefits. The main thrust of their argument seemed to be based on the virtue of non-means tested benefits. It seemed to be based on the idea of a universal benefit that would go to all those with children—whether rich or poor.
  Indirectly and directly, those hon. Members attacked the whole idea of selective benefits and means-tested benefits. I hope that they and their party will apply that criterion to all the other benefits. I hope that the Conservative Party will accept that a non-means tested benefit represents a much more effective way of dealing with poverty and of giving benefits to those who most need and deserve them.
  Those who are rich, and those on high incomes who receive child benefit, pay for it through the tax system. Indeed, they contribute to other people's child benefits. That seems a fair and equitable way of organising things and does not involve forms and means tests.
  The Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Watford and others challenged us to say how we would pay for increased benefits, for a social programme and for the public expenditure that we advocate. It should not be paid for by an increase in indirect taxation. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to me. He certainly will not listen to his own Back Benchers. I plead with him not to increase indirect taxation to pay for increases, in child benefit or anything else, or to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. An increase in indirect taxation will particularly hit those who are poor, those on lower incomes, and those who are unemployed. Those who receive widows' pensions and those in receipt of DHSS benefits or unemployment benefit pay the same amount of VAT on a product as does a millionaire.
  If taxation has to be increased to fund social benefits, an increase in direct taxation is the fairest and most equitable way of collecting the revenue. I do not shrink from the prospect that the next Labour Government will have to increase taxes in the early years of their Administration to pay for the social benefits that a civilised society should provide. I do not object to the idea of a wealth tax. I plead with the Government to keep, and not to sell off, the profitable parts of our nationalised industries. Some of the money that accrues from them could be used to provide a social wage.
  I ask the Government, and certainly the next Labour Government, not to replace Polaris but to cut defence expenditure in a way that will also reduce public expenditure. I can give figures to show how this Government's policies are increasing public expenditure. In the quarter ended 31 March 1980, expenditure on unemployment benefit in Great Britain was £210·8 million, compared with £168·5 million in the same quarter of 1979 as a direct result of increasing unemployment created by the Government.
  I speak as one who represents a Merseyside constituency. The Secretary of State, if I recall his remarks

  215
  correctly, said that social benefits, the future of the Welfare State and the future of British industry are interrelated. The problems of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, pale into insignificance compared with the unemployment and poverty in the Merseyside development area. During August 1980, 4,782 redundancies were notified in the Merseyside employment service area compared with only 850 in August 1979. In the Merseyside special development area, 3,424 redundancies were notified in August 1980 compared with 766 in August 1979. The industries that have been hit include printing, paper, publishing, transport, communications, the construction industry and the manufacturing industry.
  In the special development area of Merseyside 102,685 people are unemployed—the massive figure of 14·8 per cent. That is the background against which my constituents are having to grapple with the economic problems created by the Government. There is more to come. The docks in Merseyside will create more unemployment. Tate and Lyle threatens to close the Lark Lane factory in Liverpool with the loss of well over 1,000 jobs. The loss of those jobs is blamed by the management not on the unions but on Government policy and the consequencies of our membership of the European Economic Community.
  Courtauld's, on Merseyside, is likely to make people redundant as a direct result of Government policy. The company has to compete not with the poor nations of the world but with Japan and the United States in synthetic fibres. The Governments of both those countries—yes, even the United States Administration—give aid and assistance to their textile industries to compete with Courtaulds and to knock our manufactured man-made fibres out of the British market. The Government take no action. As a result, unemployment and poverty increase on Merseyside.
  More people in my Bootle constituency, as in other parts of the country, are becoming long-term unemployed, dependent on unemployment benefit and eventually on DHSS benefits. It is against the background of the greater dependence of the people of this country on DHSS benefits and the amount of money that the Government has to find for unemployment and DHSS benefits, which is out of control, that accusations are made—I believe them to be justified—that the Government in trying to fulfil their pledge, made during their scandalous election campaign on the issue of the scroungers, are trying to force people entitled to DHSS benefits off those benefits.
  The Secretary of State made a number of statements that misled the House about the way in which the Government are proceeding in trying to deal with fraud and abuse in DHSS benefits. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had managed to increase the staff employed in the DHSS to deal with fraud and abuse. This is grossly untrue. In the House of Lords on Thursday 27 November, in answer to a question about reductions in Civil Service staff, the Lord President of the Council said that the figures for DHSS were: staff in post on 1 April 1979,98,369; staff in post on 1 April 1980, 97,917; target staff in post on 1 April 1984, 87,700. That is a quite significant reduction of 10,000 planned in the staff of the DHSS.
  It is in the light of those reductions that the Secretary of State has had about 1,400 staff switched from other work in order to deal with fraud and abuse. The whole
  216
  social security system is being altered in the way that local offices work and in the way that fraud and abuse are being investigated in order to justify the figure of £50 million which the Secretary of State claimed would be saved by the tracking down of people who were fiddling the system. It has become obvious that that figure of £50 million was plucked out of the air without any facts or figures to justify it.
  The Government are not likely to save £50 million, because there is not £50 million to be saved. Indeed, to get somewhere near the £50 million, shock troop tactics are now being developed in the DHSS to force people who are receiving benefits and are entitled to them to go off those benefits. What is happening, despite what has been said by Conservative Members and Ministers, is that a team of special investigators is arriving at a local office of the Department of Health and Social Security, picking out files at random and visiting families in order to try to ascertain whether there is fraud and abuse and to persuade these people, by whatever method they can, to give up the benefits which they are now receiving.
  Internal documents from the DHSS show that this is happening. The fact that the staff in the DHSS themselves are complaining about the methods that they are being asked to use in order to save money also justifies the claims that I am making. I have here a document—the minutes of a Whitley Council meeting which took place on 23 October 1980 at St. Martin's House, Bootle, in my constituency, where the union side met management. According to these minutes the trade union side said that it understood that there had been a change in policy with regard to the use and role of special investigators in the region.
  Apparently the investigators would no longer fully investigate cases of suspected fraud, pursuing them to prosecution if necessary, but would concentrate on knocker campaigns which involved visiting claimants where there was a suspicion of fraud or abuse and being able to persuade the persons concerned to withdraw claims for benefit. They go on in this document to complain about these techniques and point out that the management are even saying to staff that their promotion prospects will be dependent upon how many people they get off benefit, in the way policemen are promoted based on the number of prosecutions they get.
  There is a document from the management side which says:
  "There will be no question of random selection—only cases selected by reference to criteria along the following lines will be investigated".
  Remember, there is no question of random selection, but anyone who is in receipt of a benefit who has a marketable skill or trade, for example, motor mechanic or building trade, can be investigated at random. Anybody with a record of self-employment can be visited at random. Anybody with a significant money-earning occupation which could nevertheless be followed on a casual or spare-time basis can be visited at random. Anyone who is apparently in good health and fitness can be visited at random, as can anybody whose current unemployment has lasted for more than four months. All those people can be visited without any other justification and attempts can be made to persuade them to give up benefits. Yet we are told that there is no question of random selection. What the staff of the local offices are being asked to do is totally undesirable.

  217
  The unemploment review officers who used to operate from DHSS offices and try to help the long-term unemployed to get work—and that was a difficult job in Merseyside—are now being used to deal with abuse. The 36 unemployment review officers in the Merseyside region have been supplemented by other officers and given the job of getting the long-term unemployed off the books. That is called benefit savings.
  I have examples of those officers persuading or forcing the long-term unemployed off benefits for no other reason than that they are not sufficiently enthusiastic in seeking work, even though they have not turned down jobs. The DHSS staff also object to that and those who object most to the new tactics are the staff in local offices. They see part of their job as being to make sure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled. Those staff are having a lot more work to do as a result of special investigation teams moving into areas, picking out files at random, persuading people to come off benefits when they should continue to claim benefits, and moving out, leaving the local staff to pick up the pieces.
  The Under-Secretary said on television that that sort of thing was not happening, but I know that 44 cases were picked out at random from the local office that operates in her constituency of Wallasey. They were visited and some were wrongly persuaded not to continue claiming benefits. Since the special investigation team left her constituency, the local staff has had to pick up the pieces and help those concerned, who have got into considerable difficulties as a result of the tactics of that special investigation team.
  The policy being forced on the DHSS staff by the uncaring Government and their uncaring Ministers is a disgrace to a civilised society. It goes against natural justice and causes considerable hardship among those who are least able to defend themselves. Despite what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North said, I know of no strong army representing the unemployed and those receiving DHSS benefits. I know people who strongly represent employers or trade unionists at work, but those on supplementary benefit do not have much bargaining power.
  I recently received a letter that indicates the sort of situation brought about by the Government's unfeeling policies. A lady wrote to me in these terms:
  "In February of this year my husband became ill and claimed sickness benefit. He had not previously sent in a claim in 34 years work. He was noted for his integrity and was a very respected member of the staff. On June 12th a woman came to the door and demanded to see him; I can not express it in any other way. It was most upsetting as my husband was at that moment dying. His death took place a few hours later."
  That is the sort of situation being created by the special investigation teams which are operating not only in selected areas but throughout the country. Even if the Government claim that the methods have been used previously—though they have not—they cannot claim that they have been used throughout the country before. Special investigation teams were established in only a few areas and operated under different terms of reference. They now operate throughout the country, and the Government should be ashamed of the way in which they are operating.
  The Government and their spokesmen have not yet convinced me today that they care about those in need, the unemployed and those who are worst off in our community. I believe that their policies, which have
  218
  pushed up inflation and are now designed to bring it down, are also designed to do that at the expense of those in most need in our community. They hope to protect those whom they represent—the wealthy in our society, the people who contribute to Conservative Party funds and the sort of people represented by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I hope that the House will accept my apologies for having had to miss some of the earlier speeches. Because of that, and because of the little time that is left, my contribution will be short. I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will not object if I do not follow him down the path that he took.
  I endorse what my hon. Friend for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said about inflation. All hon. Members have accepted that inflation hits the poor particularly hard. It is therefore of great relevance, in a debate on poverty, to consider what is happening to inflation.
  Putting aside party rhetoric, there is no question but that price increases in the last six months of last year were low, and welcome because they were low. The increases were of about 3·7 per cent. We would be the last to suggest that that represents an annual inflation rate, in the way that we all understand inflation rates, of 7½ per cent., but it is undeniable that it represents inflation coming down rapidly. It is the first welcome sign of relief to those who are most in need.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made a point to which I shall refer, although it has only passing relevance to the problem of poverty. He spoke somewhat darkly about problems that might arise, civil disorder and disinterest. He cited local government. I do not believe that I take second place to many Conservative Members in my knowledge of and fight for local government. With great respect, I say to the hon. Member that the problems of which he speaks and the poor calibre of many local council candidates have been with us for many years. I am sure that on reflection he will agree with that.
  I welcome the fact that in spite of all the rumours a few months ago about cuts in all benefits across the board, the Government have maintained retirement pensions, widows' pensions and supplementary benefits. At the time I felt strongly that it would have been wrong if those benefits had not been uprated in line with inflation and with our commitments. As someone who fought for the uprating of those benefits, I welcome what has been done.
  My prime concern has already been expressed by other hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members. It was eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). That concern relates to child benefit. I make no apology for returning to this matter, because if poverty in this country is not a matter of starvation—and we know that it is not—and if it is not the sort of poverty that was experienced in the 1930s—and by and large it is not—none the less it remains poverty that is associated in the main with large or larger families in poor housing and in poor environments and breeds a train of problems for which, ultimately, society must pay.
  I am convinced, even if for no other reasons—there are many others—that child benefit stands out clearly as the easiest and greatest way to assist these people. We should be ashamed that a written answer in January this year showed that the level of child benefit was lower in real

  219
  terms than the equivalent child support—which then consisted of child tax allowances and family allowances—paid when Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister in the early 1950s. Neither party can be proud of that fact.
  With respect to the hon. Member for Bootle, I believe that in this case blanket benefits are the right way to tackle the problem, and in that I am backed up by many more qualified than I. We still do not have a proper, full tax credit scheme. When we have such a scheme, under which benefits can be more easily and properly directed to those most in need, the concept of blanket benefit fades away.
  Finally, let me say that I, too, would have great difficulty in supporting action that did not raise child benefit by at least 50p at the next uprating.
  9 pm
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: The debate has ranged widely, as was the intention of our motion. The Secretary of State was here to defend the Government's policies. He is the first Secretary of State for Social Services who I have heard talk about going into purdah before the Budget. His speech could be taken as an application to be the next Chancellor. It is frightening that he may succeed. He has been tipped from the Opposition Benches for that position. I do not know why, several weeks before the Budget, he will not tell us his Department's thinking on the future of social security benefits but hides behind the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not talk about tax allowances and rates at this time.
  Until the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) spoke, the Secretary of State was the only speaker to defend the Government. I have not been present for every speech, but I understand that every Conservative Member attacked the Government for failing in some of their election promises and for misleading voters, and pleaded with them to keep the promises that they made when in Opposition about child benefit, the disabled, tax thresholds, and so on. There has been a fair degree of unison in opposing the Government.
  I welcome to the debate the Minister for Social Security. Anyone who has served in the Northern Ireland Office deserves our respect. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that he has come to no sinecure in the DHSS.
  We have been criticised for saying that everything started to get worse in May 1979. That is the point of our motion. Poverty has increased since May 1979 as a result of the Government's policies. Last week, from the press and television, we learnt of the Salvation Army setting up a soup kitchen in Crowland, in Lincolnshire, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). The local authority has abolished school meals at the secondary school, and on Monday the local fish and chip shop is closed. The Salvation Army citadel is about 100 yards away and it set up a soup kitchen for the children. There can be no better one-off example than that to show how things have increasingly gone from bad to worse under this Government.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the Government's policy of trying to frighten people into not claiming benefits. Reference has been made to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), the former
  220
  Minister for Social Security, the shock troopers who he set up to frighten people off and the DHSS internal memoranda about organising the campaign.
  On more than one occasion, when seeking to defend his role, the Secretary of State said that he never fed the argument about the so-called scroungers. Of course, that was carefully left to the Back Benchers of the Conservative Party. On at least two occasions, when speaking from the Dispatch Box he denied that he played any role in the argument.
  When searching through my files recently I came across a few pieces of paper which, in 1978,I had labelled as the Jenkin scrounger-abuse speech. I want to remind the Secretary of State of the part that he played in fermenting fear in many millions of our citizens who are afraid to claim their benefits. In four columns in Hansard, he made three references to the matter. He said
  "However, we all know that many of the people are not reached. We all know that there is a great deal of abuse. By its very nature no figure can be put against that abuse."
  There has been another turn around since the election. The Government are now claiming all sorts of figures relating to the amount of abuse. Two columns later, the Secretary of State said
  "We must strengthen the investigatory machinery and curb abuse of the system."
  He stated in the next column
  "Because it is known that abuse is widespread, people are reluctant to find themselves labelled as scroungers."—[Official Report, 21 November 1978; Vol. 958, cc. 1137–40.]
  That very thing is happening today. People are afraid to claim benefits. During that speech the right hon. Gentleman was pulled up by one of my hon. Friends for distorting the position while speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He has played his role in fermenting the campaign that was mounted by the Government during and since the last general election.
  Many hon. Members have quoted examples from the Government's new instructions. I want to quote one that has not been touched on in the debate. New Sociefy states that one of the areas of suspicion where a fraud may arise is
  "for instance, where a claimant has been on benfit for over a year without applying for a lump sum grant."
  If a claimant receives benefit for a year and applies for a lump sum grant he will find that the rules have been changed. He will not receive the grant, because the Government say that the weekly benefit should meet all his needs. Yet if he does not apply for a grant, that is marked against him because the Government think that he has more income than he needs to survive. That is a Catch 22 position. The Government cannot deny that they have put people in that fearful position.
  The additional staff that have been employed as social security fraud investigators should be employed by the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue's staff has been cut since the Government came into power. I want to quote one figure about the rip-off of the tax system, which receives a great deal of support from the Government. The annual report of the Board of Inland Revenue showed that £61 million was written off as irrecoverable—£23 million of which was because it lost the taxpayer. The Inland Revenue actually could not trace the taxpayer. Another £7 million or £8 million was written off because the amount recovered would be insufficient to justify the costs of proceedings. We could make the same case about some of the small amounts of social security fraud—although, of

  221
  course, we do not condone them. The Government have found a way around that. The social security offices so frighten claimants at the interview that there will be no need to mount a prosecution. The claimants cannot be defined in the same way as the Inland Revenue tax evaders. The Government cannot put a figure on it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do the figures include the legal dodging of the Vestey group? Lord Thorneycroft, a great Tory, supported that legal dodge.
  Mr. Rooker: No, and the figures also did not include the legal dodging of the Rossminster group. The figures that I quoted are official Inland Revenue figures for the amount that it has written off.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: What about Lord Brayley?
  Mr. Rooker: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members is that we make the same speeches whichever side of the House we are on. That is not the case with Conservative Members. The figures are infinitesimal compared with the tax abuse. But they are known figures by the Inland Revenue. They are higher than the amount of social security fraud that the Government claim they will stop.
  Sir Frederick Burden: For which year were those figures?
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I said that I was quoting from the latest report of the Board of Inland Revenue.
  Sir Frederick Burden: Which year?
  Mr. Rooker: The latest report, the 122nd report.
  Sir Frederick Burden: To which year do the figures relate?
  Mr. Rooker: It is the latest report of the Board of Inland Revenue, published in February last year.
  Sir Frederick Burden: Relating to the Labour Government's period in office.
  Mr. Rooker: They are the figures for 1978. I do not deny that. I am not condoning what is there reported. The truth is that the figures have got worse under this Government. I do not draw any distinction between tax abuse under a Labour Government and tax abuse under a Tory Government. Neither do we condone social security abuse under either Government. We make the same point, that the amounts of known social security abuse, worth about 2p in every £5,000 paid out in benefit, are infinitesimal compared with the amount of tax avoidance and abuse. All we ask is that the Government put the same proportionate effort into seeking out tax abuse as they have done for social security abuse. But we know that they will not do that.
  I turn now to what was said by certain hon. Members on the Government Benches. I refer, in particular, to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who spoke while I was out of the Chamber but who, I understand, made a passionate plea that the Government should not renege on child benefit. I understand also that he made some remarks regarding what he hoped the Chancellor would not do about the tax thresholds. I gather that he said that the Chancellor should not this year index-link the wealthy.
  222
  I hope that most hon. Members appreciate that last year the Government actually altered the indexation provisions of the Finance Act 1977 so that they automatically indexed the wealthy each year, which was not done by the provision introduced by one of my former hon. Friends and myself in 1977. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Watford voted for that change last year.
  The issue of the tax thresholds is of great significance, as even the Secretary of State believes. Perhaps, to be more correct, I should say as he "believed", in the light of what he said in a debate on the poverty trap in 1977. He will recall that debate on a Friday morning, initiated by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I note in passing that that hon. Member has been conspicuous by his absence today, but I shall refer to him later, though not in derogatory terms.
  The Secretary of State then said:
  "The tax threshold is now so low that even those on means-tested benefits are paying tax—for instance, those on family income supplement."
  That is still the position today. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason—that is, for the poverty trap—
  "is mainly, though not solely, the high initial tax rates and the absurdly low tax thresholds."
  Between 1977 and today the Labour Government introduced a lower tax rate band so that those just above the poverty trap went in at only 25p in the pound. Since then, of course, this Government have raised the high marginal rate for those just coming out of the poverty trap.
  The right hon. Gentleman will remember also saying:
  "The first and most important thing is that tax thresholds must be raised."
  All this was in connection with overcoming the problems of the poverty trap He went on to use a telling phrase in respect of child benefit which is worth putting on record now in view of the importance which several hon. Members on both sides have attached to it in the present debate. I add this especially in view of the speech by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). This is what the right hon. Gentleman said that morning, referring to what he had said earlier in the year:
  "I repeat the pledge which I gave on that occasion"—
  that was in May 1977, and he quoted his own words—
  "I must state clearly, without any 'ifs' and 'buts', that it will be our intention when we win the next general election to introduce a full child benefit as soon as it is practicable as the first stage of phasing in a tax credit scheme.
  "If I am asked why we give that pledge, it is, first, because that is the way to restore the position of the families."—[Official Report, 17 June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 786–94.]
  Of course, the Tories were holding themselves out as the party of the family at that time, although everyone who looks at the figures, whether nationally or in his own constituency, knows that the position of families has vastly deteriorated under this Tory Government.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer also knows only too well the powerful reasons why he must raise the tax threshold at least in line with the cost of living. He gave four categorical reasons, which are listed under early-day motion 118. To do anything less will plunge families into a position worse than they are now, and worse than they were under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Race: Will my hon. Friend care to reflect that the Government have allowed the disaggregation of income for tax purposes for families on high incomes where there are a number of children in the family? For example, it is possible for an individual on a high income to covenant part of his income to his children, thereby gaining an

  223
  additional personal tax allowance for each child. Therefore, is not the bleating by the Government about child benefit totally out of line?
  Mr. Rooker: I believe that at Question Time last Thursday the Chancellor said what a good thing he had done for charities in the last Budget. He sought to give the impression that he had made a change in the last Finance Act that benefited charities in general. But it was a change that benefited the well-off, who are able to use covenants to increase their net income.
  The figures that the Opposition use are mainly figures supplied by the Government. One can find plenty of other figures to show the position of families. Nearly all groups in society, not just families, are worse off than they were a year ago. In pre-Murdoch days—on 4 January this year—The Sunday Times looked at 11 groups in society. It would be interesting to see whether things go according to plan and whether this exercise is repeated next January. It did not give average figures, because they can conceal as much as they reveal. The survey used figures based on the Government's family expenditure survey of 7,000 households. The figures were put through a computer, taking into account the spending patterns, and produced comparative figures. Of the 11 groups, five were worse off and six were better off. The five worse off were the pensioner couple, the low-paid manual worker's family, the semi-skilled worker's family, the skilled worker's family and the young white-collar worker's family.
  Those are figures from a Government that bleated a great deal about improving incentives for the skilled. I cannot go into details of particular examples about the income of the wife or the children, whether there was investment, or what amount was spent on various items. The single female pensioner was better off, but because averages were not used this example shows what can go wrong if one is not very careful.
  The single female pensioner quoted, who was better off by 12p a week, was in receipt of old-age pension of £27·15 a week, £7·75 a week in building society interest and £6 a week other investment income. She was not a typical single pensioner, but she was only 12p a week better off in 1981 than she was in 1980 because of the changes made by the Government. Also better off was the young single civil servant, the middle-class couple working in London, the middle manager's family, the senior manager and the company director. They were better off in the period January 1980-January 1981.
  Those figures were not dreamed up by the Opposition but were supplied by the Government, following the Government's detailed surveys of what the population spends.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the effect on the disabled of the Government's changes since they came to power. It is incredible that at last the BBC has woken up to the fact that the Social Security (No. 2) Act was not just about strikers' families. It has taken the corporation a long time to wake up to the fact that the people suffering mostly under that Act, as we said at the time, are the elderly, the disabled and the working poor.
  I have read several interviews with representatives of disabled persons groups who complain about what the Government have done. I mentioned the Solihull district
  224
  council in an intervention earlier. It has always been Tory-controlled and I fear that it always will be. However, its majority will be reduced in the near future. There are no Tory wets in that part of the world, and today the council has been making certain decisions. I do not have the results, but I have no doubt about them. It will cut the home help service by 24 per cent. That is in direct contradiction to what the Government say to local authorities. They say "Do not affect the people in need by your cuts. We want savage cuts, but please do not affect them because we receive complaints and cannot defend such action."
  The Solihull council is to reduce its social work staff by 62 per cent. I understand that for all practical purposes the social work department will cease to exist before long. Such cuts are indefensible.
  Mr. George Park: Is my hon. Friend aware that out of 66 professional social workers the Solihull council intends to dismiss 35?
  Mr. Rooker: That reflects the percentage that I used.
  I should like the Minister of State to answer several specific questions. The Government should make a statement about their intentions on child benefit. The House deserves nothing less. I hope that I shall receive confirmation of a written answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch. He asked about the 5 per cent, abatement that the Government can still make to this November's uprating. The former Minister of State said:
  "These benefits will be increased … It is not proposed to make use of the power … to abate … by up to 5 per cent."—[Official Report, 19 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 532.]
  Will 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 3 per cent., or 4 per cent, be involved? Alternatively, do the Government not intend to use the power?
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position clear in his statement last November. He said that the 1 per cent, over-payment this year on prices would be compensated by a 1 per cent, reduction next November. That is the only proposal that we have in mind. The provision for that in terms of the long-term benefit will be in the Social Security Bill that we hope to introduce later this month.
  Mr. Rooker: That means that the Government do not propose to use the power in the Social Security (No. 2) Act but that they will abate the benefit under another piece of legislation. Benefits will not go up as they should. That cannot be denied.
  Two Conservative Members have been conspicuous by their absence today. I refer to the hon. Members for Norfolk, North and for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). One hon. Member was in for part of the debate but did not appear to seek to take part in the debate. Jointly they employ a research assistant by the name of Hermione Parker, who produced a report. However, the hon. Members could not find time to use the evidence in that report to defend the Government.
  The report states, and substantiates with Government figures, that so far under this Government there have been no real cuts in direct taxation except for the tiny minority of people with an income of more than £500 a week. There were no real direct cuts if one takes into account tax cuts, the increase in inflation and other changes made by the Government. The report was published by the Outer Circle Policy Unit, which sent me a copy.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be implying that my hon. Friends had in some way attempted to cover up the work that was carried out by their research assistant. Perhaps he did not intend to imply that. As far as I am aware, my hon. Friends made that work available not only to colleagues but to the Child Poverty Action Group.
  Mr. Rooker: No, I did not intend to imply that; far from it. But I should have thought that hon. Members could have attended the debate today because they could then have added weight to their document, which was sponsored under the parliamentary research system. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and I have carried out a similar exercise with the Low Pay Unit, and we have not hesitated to use the material.
  Hermione Parker makes a telling assessment that the Government are bringing about a revolution in social policy that is not desirable, without Parliament or Ministers realising what is happening. I assume that Ministers do not realise what is happening. There was a reference to Tory social policy today, and I was reminded of a remark by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a previous debate, that Tory social policy seemed a contradiction in terms, given the record of this Government since 1979.
  So far, the pensioners have been hit hardest. Whatever the Secretary of State may say, however hard he may try to wriggle out of it, and however strongly the Tories may claim that the Prime Minister promised that pensions would keep up with the cost of living—the pensioners will have to pay for that promise this year in order to keep the Prime Minister to her promise—they cannot wriggle out of the fact that if they had not changed the law and the system by which the pension is operated, instead of the present pension for a married couple being £43·45 it would be £44·90, If the law had not been changed by this Conservative Government the pension today, of £27·15 for a single person, would be £28·10 under the old Labour-introduced law. That cannot be denied.
  There is an all-party sponsored early-day motion on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), the joint chairmen of the all-party group on pensioners, have their names at that top of the motion. The name of the hon. Member for Kemptown appears first. At present this is the only motion on the Order Paper that has a Conservative Member's name at the top and a majority of the Members signing it from the Labour Party. The motion asks the Government to protect the pension. About four or five, or possibly six Conservative Members have signed it. They ask their Government to reconsider their intention to introduce the legislation that the Secretary of State has promised. That legislation would, in effect, cut the pension.
  I wish to make two brief references to the unemployed and to child benefit. Many hon. Members referred to the unemployed, and I have no doubt that we shall hear more on Thursday. It cannot be denied that the unemployed have suffered most under this Government. Only today, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), the Prime Minister
  226
  refused to consider putting the unemployed on to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit, even though she said that the Government were aware of the case for this change.
  Many organisations have warned the Government about the social consequences of the rising rate of unemployment. I should like to quote part of a letter that I received from one of my constituents a few weeks ago, which states:
  "I tell you … when I'm made redundant in the summer and there comes a time when my missus and laddie face real want then the rule of law is going out of the window."
  My constituent goes on to write about tax abuse and the way in which the wealthy have gained under this Government and are continuing to gain. He is only one of millions who are suffering and who will not accept the Government's policies.
  We will not condone the breaking of the law, but we must heed the warnings that are coming to our notice. The Government are aware of what was said in the Welsh Select Committee and they know what members of the TUC have said, but the message is coming unsolicited from the ordinary people of Britain who are not yet unemployed but who can see a stark future. They will not take it lying down.
  My next question to the Minister concerns child benefit and the change to a four-weekly system. I asked the Secretary of State yesterday whether the benefit order books had yet been printed for a four-weekly cycle. I had information to the effect that they had been. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether they had been ordered and printed. He told me that no books had yet been printed, and I now repeat the other part of the question, namely, whether the books have yet been ordered. The Minister will not need me to remind him that the Government's consultation remains open until the end of February. It is rumoured—the information came to me via a sub-postmaster—that the books have already been obtained or ordered.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: How does he know?
  Mr. Rooker: He obtained the information from Washington, from the child benefit centre. Have the books been ordered? I am told that they have not yet been printed.
  The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is obviously resting and recuperating at present, referred in his letter of resignation—if one can call it that—to his belief in one nation and his fight for that in the Cabinet, with the clear implication that the Cabinet did not believe in one nation.
  I shall quote a paragraph from the last report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which was published in the autumn of 1980, when the commission was bemoaning cuts in the Welfare State provision. It claimed:
  "the creation of family allowances, the National Health Service, the major social insurance schemes … were not merely administrative inventions, they were deliberate attempts to rally … what might easily have become a divided and demoralised nation."
  It referred to the role played in the past by the SBC and the SSAC and added:
  "A free State will not survive unless its people feel loyalty to it. If the State is not interested in them, why should they be interested in the State?"
  It was quoting the present Lord Privy Seal in February 1980. Those words ought to be taken on board by the

  227
  Government, by the Minister of State, and certainly by the Prime Minister. The groups that are referred to in the Opposition's motion consider that the State, run by this disgusting Tory Government, is no longer interested in them.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister For Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): First, I thank the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) for his kind words of welcome and good wishes to me. Like the hon. Gentleman, I come to a complex and difficult subject with a fresh mind. I hope that in consequence the House will forgive me if I do not go into matters of great detail this evening. I shall try to answer broad-brush questions on various Government policies.
  The debate is concerned principally with poverty—an issue that must be of great concern to us all as individuals who are fortunate enough not to be subject to it, and above all of concern to the Government. It is a highly charged and emotive subject, and it is very difficult to have a discussion that is not free from exaggeration, hyperbole and even distortion and misrepresentation. The debate has not been free from those elements.
  Even the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), to whom we all listen with the greatest respect in debates of this kind, could not resist the temptation to be a little less than fair. He claimed that it was the philosophy of the Conservative Party to raise the living standards of the rich and to lower those of the poor in order to give the poor greater incentive to become rich. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That catcall from the Opposition Benches indicates how reason and fairness are put to one side when we are discussing matters of this kind.
  What has been said by the Opposition is, of course, a cynical gloss and misrepresentation of our views. We have repeatedly made it clear that our care and concern is to look after and protect the most vulnerable in our society, and I shall deny anyone who says to the contrary. What we have said—and this is no more than plain common sense—is that we cannot do all that we want to do until the country has earned the money to do it. Therefore, the priority must be to reduce inflation and return to a sound economy. Once we have done that we can do all the things that are being urged upon us from both sides of the House to help the less well off in our society, to bring in a comprehensive system to help the disabled, to end the hotch-potch of benefits that we have and to increase child benefit.
  Those are all laudable objectives, but, as a responsible Government, we must strike a balance between longer-term policy objectives and shorter-term economic priorities. The overriding need must be to reduce inflation, and the poor stand to gain the most from that. Indeed, our policy is succeeding. Since inflation reached a peak of 21.9 per cent, it has fallen every month. It is now 15.1 per cent., measured over a 12-month period. The underlying trend is even better, because taken over the past six months the rate of inflation is below 10 per cent, and still falling. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, over the past year the standard of living in this country as a whole has risen by an average of 2 per cent.
  The Opposition say that the Government's record does not show care and concern for the poor, and the motion
  228
  refers to the dismantling of the Welfare State. But what are the figures? As my right hon. Friend pointed out—and I repeat this because it is clear that the Opposition did not hear it—we are spending £20,000 million a year on social security, which is a quarter of all public expenditure. Is that dismantling the Welfare State?
  Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose—
  Mr. Rossi: No, I cannot give way, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has left me too little time. The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not give way.
  Moreover, the upgrading this year will add a further £3,000 million in a full year. It is rubbish to say that these measures are undermining the Welfare State.
  Let us consider the details of what we have sought to do. One-parent families have benefited considerably from the measures taken by the Government. I noted that references to family income supplement were much absent from the speeches of Opposition Members when they were talking about poorer working families. After all, it was a wicked Tory measure to produce a family income supplement to raise the level of income of the poorer working families. Yet we have maintained and upgraded it. The average FIS payment is now £10, and the majority goes to one-parent families.
  In pursuing his theme of hostility to the poorer people the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred to the efforts that are being made by the Department to prevent fraud and abuse of the system. That criticism was re-echoed by many Labour Members. I say categorically that there has been no departure from the standards of fraud investigation developed during the previous Administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] The standards are the same.
  As reference has been made to it, I shall quote from the guide that has been issued to the officers concerned. I shall quote paragraphs 9 and 10, and when I have finished hon. Members can judge for themselves whether this problem is being dealt with in as sympathetic and humane way as possible, given the circumstances that always arise when fraud is being committed. It states:
  "We want you to be effective and get results. But those results must be achieved in ways which are consistent with the administration of a major social service. Investigation must invariably be fair and unbiased and have regard to the legal constraints set out in this Guide…firm measures against fraud must not result in the unacceptable treatment of perfectly honest people … This combination of effective investigation and scrupulously fair methods calls for a continuous sense of balance in the sensitive area of work".
  That is the instruction given to all the officers concerned in this work, and it is a standard that has always been maintained by the Department of Health and Social Security.
  Mr. Ashley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as time is short. The objection that I raised was that the Government were failing to deal with an even greater fraud, that of tax evasion, and refusing to deal with something that is far bigger and greater than a little bit of scrounging. We are all against scrounging.
  Mr. Rossi: I have no sympathy at all for the tax evaders either, because every pound that is fiddled by people getting social security benefits to which they are not entitled, or every pound that people do not pay in tax which they are legally obliged to pay, is a denial of money

  229
  for those in our society whom we wish to help. It is a pound less for the blind and the disabled. I have no sympathy at all with that.
  The question of prosecution has been mentioned. A change in policy has taken place. We do not prosecute as rigorously and vigorously as did the previous Administration, because we find that it is far easier and cheaper to make sure that these abuses are stopped without dragging people before the courts. Labour Members talk about humanity. When I practised as a lawyer and defended people who had been accused of fraud, I know that they would have given anything to be able to settle the matter before appearing before a judge, by paying the money which they had defrauded or stolen.
  Mr. Allan Roberts Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
  Mr. Rossi: If we could get the money back in that way, would it not be better for the public purse? Would it not be better for all those concerned if this draconian measure of prosecution—with all the panoply of the law that it involves—were used only in serious cases? The Government have adopted that attitude.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the gravamen and gravity of the charge. Removal from prosecution was not done for humane reasons. The Government have sharpened the pressure on those officers who carry out interviews. As I said earlier, the Government have not made the policy more humane by avoiding bringing prosecutions. For example, a person of low mentality would not be prosecuted. However, that failure to prosecute would arise not from humane motives, but from the fear that the court might take a more humane view of the matter than would the Department.
  Mr. Rossi: I do not accept that statement for one moment. That is not the case.
  I turn to one other matter that was specifically raised and for which I have responsibility, namely, the Government's position on the International Year of Disabled People. I have been asked what steps the Government are taking. For the Year, the DHSS has allocated £103,000 to the secretariat of the Voluntary Organisations Committee. Discussions are taking place about a larger amount that could be allocated to cover the whole of 1981. This year, the main thrust must be borne by the voluntary organisations. The community as a whole should be involved in the International Year. We must try to create a greater realisation of the problems of the disabled among the general public and to change their attitudes towards the disabled. That can be done to better effect through the great wealth of voluntary organisations than through circulars and leaflets from a Department.
  For example, the Department of the Environment has given a grant towards the setting up of a competition amongst architects. They have been challenged to produce a design suited to the needs of the disabled. Anyone who goes into a public building such as a cinema or theatre knows how far this subject has been from the minds of architects.
  Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose—
  Mr. Carter-Jones Mr. Carter-Jones rose—
  Mr. Rossi: I shall not give way. [Interruption.] I do not know how many speeches we are listening to, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make my own.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Rossi: I turn to some of the contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) referred to the personal social services. He expressed satisfaction that the Government were asking local authorities not to allow their economies to affect the services that they provide for the less able members of our society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that perfectly clear.
  Certain figures have been quoted. Cuts in budgets have been mentioned. Overall, the cuts that have been made have occurred, not in actual expenditure but in programmed expenditure. The latest returns from local authorities indicate that the overall expenditure on personal social sevices is being maintaind at a level 4 per cent, higher than in 1978–79. This does not mean that some authorities are not cutting some expenditure. We regret it where that happens. Given that there is a real increase in expenditure, this shows that local authorities, as a whole, have heeded the words, the request and the plea of my right hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North and others of my hon. Friends raised the question of a Green Paper to deal with disablement benefit. It is the Government's long-term objective to introduce a comprehensive, rational benefit scheme for all disabled persons. This can be done only through increased public expenditure. At a time when it is still impossible to forecast what additional financial resources will be available for these purposes, it would raise expectations unnecessarily if we went as far as to publish a Green Paper even on the basis of a long-term consultation.
  It is not necessary for us to publish a Green Paper for the purposes of long-term consultation. Consultation with the interested bodies is a continuing process. It takes place all the time. We heed the representations made to us from all sources about the manner in which the benefits can be restructured and retailored. One hopes that when the day comes that we have additional resources, this will be the time for us to come forward with firm proposals, but not now.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), for Homchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) have urged that the Government increase child benefit. I listened with care to the cogent arguments that were advanced. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made aware of the depth of feeling that exists on this matter. I must add a word of caution. Child benefit now costs £3,300 million. Each family receives £4.75 per child per week tax free, irrespective of other personal income. Most families today are still better off under child benefit than if the old system of family allowance plus child tax allowance had been retained and revalued in line with prices.
  The benefit, as now cast, is extremely expensive. Every 10p of benefit costs £56 million net of adjustments to other benefits. Although the Chancellor will pay heed to what has been said, I trust that my hon. Friends will understand the size of the commitment that they seek to urge upon him. I remind my hon. Friends that we are committed to the child benefit system. It is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rossi: I cannot give way. I have only a few minutes left to speak.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to my translation from Northern Ireland and stated that I was aware of the problems there. I regard it as a privilege that I had the opportunity of serving in Northern Ireland. I regret now not seeing the many friends that I made in the few months I was there—charming, delightful, but impossible people they may be. Nevertheless, one cannot but have a great affection for them.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there were special problems in Northern Ireland, as indeed there are, and of course in other parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has particular problems as regards unemployment and fuel costs. They are the most glaring, apart from the troubles themselves.
  But earnings in the Province are coming up to approximately the level of earnings in the rest of the United Kingdom, although there remains a gap. Nevertheless,' Ministers are conscious of the problem and the hon. Gentleman well knows, because we have had this discussion on other occasions, that the total public expenditure of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland for the year 1980–81 will be of the order of £2,400 million for a population of about 1½ million. That is a recognition of the special problems in Northern Ireland, because the per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland is far higher than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom.
  In regard to energy costs, the hon. Gentleman will recall that last summer the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reappropriated funds and also secured £48 million from the contingency reserve fund, of which £30 million was used for this precise purpose of cushioning the effects of high energy costs for the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, they currently benefit from the very special package of fuel benefits that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Department in which I now serve.
  The help to poor consumers has risen to over £200 million a year in Great Britain. This help is most concentrated on the poorest—those receiving supplementary benefit and family income supplement; their heating addition has been boosted by more than the rise in fuel prices during the period November 1979 to November 1980.
  I reject the accusation of the Opposition that this Government do not have concern for the poor or for the people of Northern Ireland. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the newly formed Social Security Advisory Committee held its second meeting, under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Armitage, in Northern Ireland only a week or so ago. That indicates the concern that there is for the problem of poverty in Northern Ireland.
  I have sought in the time allotted to me to answer some of the charges made by the Opposition against the policy of this Government. I reject them totally and utterly, but before I resume my seat I must say to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, in answer to the specific question he asked me concerning the four-week books, that they have not been printed nor have they been ordered, and no decision will be taken until the consultation period has been ended. So, as with most of the information he has given the House today apparently from some anonymous sub-postmaster,
  232
  he is entirely inaccurate in the allegations that he has made, as have been totally inaccurate the allegations made by other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I conclude with the theme that I began on. In dealing with poverty we are dealing with an emotive subject that concerns us all. But it is of no help at all to those who suffer poverty to have their suffering treated as a political football in a game of confrontation between the political parties. We should have greater concern for all that they suffer.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 304.

  Division No. 60]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Adams,Allen

  Dunn, James A.

  Allaun,Frank

  Dunnett,Jack

  Alton,David

  Dunwoody,HonMrsG.

  Anderson,Donald

  Eastham,Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Armstrong,RtHon Ernest

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  English,Michael

  Ashton,Joe

  Ennals, RtHonDavid

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Bagier,Gordon AT.

  Evans,John(Newton)

  Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)

  Ewing,Harry

  Barnett, RtHonJoel (H'wd)

  Faulds,Andrew

  Beith,A. J.

  Field,Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Flannery,Martin

  Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Fletcher,A.(Ed'nb'ghN)

  Bidwell,Sydney

  Fletcher,Ted(Darlington)

  Booth, RtHon Albert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boothroyd,MissBetty

  Ford, Ben

  Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro)

  Forrester,John

  Bradley,Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Bray, DrJeremy

  Foulkes,George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

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

  Freeson, RtHon Reginald

  Brown,Ron(E'burgh,Leith)

  Freud,Clement

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Garrett,John (NorwichS)

  Buchan,Norman

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

  George,Bruce

  Campbell,Ian

  Gilbert, RtHonDrJohn

  Campbell-Savours,Dale

  Ginsburg,David

  Canavan,Dennis

  Golding,John

  Cant, R. B.

  Gourlay.Harry

  Carmichael,Neil

  Graham, Ted

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Grant,George(Morpeth)

  Cartwright,John

  Grant,John(IslingtonC)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'StolS)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Cohen,Stanley

  Hamilton,W.W.(C'tralFife)

  Conlan,Bernard

  Hardy, Peter

  Cowans, Harry

  Harrison, RtHon Walter

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

  Hart, RtHon Dame Judith

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Crowther,J.S.

  Haynes,Frank

  Cryer,Bob

  Heffer, EricS.

  Cunliffe,Lawrence

  Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)

  Cunningham,G.(IslingtonS)

  Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'II)

  Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)

  HomeRobertson,John

  Dalyell,Tam

  Homewood,William

  Davidson,Arthur

  Horam,John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Davies, Ifor(Gower)

  Howells,Geraint

  Davis,Clinton (HackneyC)

  Huckfield,Les

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

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Deakins,Eric

  Hughes,Mark(Durham)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Dewar,Donald

  Hughes,Roy(Newport)

  Dixon,Donald

  Janner,HonGreville

  Dobson,Frank

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dormand,Jack

  John,Brynmor

  Douglas,Dick

  Johnson,James(Hull West)

  Douglas-Mann,Bruce

  Johnson,Walter(DerbyS)

  Dubs,Alfred

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  233

  Jones, Barry(East Flint)

  Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

  Kaufman, RtHonGerald

  Roberts, Ernest(HackneyN)

  Ken, Russell

  Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)

  Kilfedder,JamesA.

  Robertson,George

  Kilroy-Silk,Robert

  Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)

  Kinnock,Neil

  Rodgers, RtHonWilliam

  Lambie,David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lamborn,Harry

  Roper,John

  Lamond,James

  Rowlands,Ted

  Leadbitter,Ted

  Ryman,John

  Lestor, MissJoan

  Sever,John

  Lewis,Arthur(N'hamNW)

  Sheerman,Barry

  Lewis,Ron(Carlisle)

  Sheldon, RtHonR.

  Litherland,Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse,Geoffrey

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Lyon,Alexander(York)

  Silkin, RtHon J.(Deptford)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  McCartney,Hugh

  Silverman,Julius

  McDonald,DrOonagh

  Skinner,Dennis

  McElhone,Frank

  Smith,Cyril(Rochdale)

  McGuire,Michael(Ince)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McKay,Allen(Penistone)

  Spearing,Nigel

  MacKenzie, RtHonGregor

  Spriggs,Leslie

  Maclennan,Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  McMahon,Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McNally,Thomas

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (WIsles)

  McNamara,Kevin

  Stoddart,David

  McWilliam,John

  Stott,Roger

  Magee,Bryan

  Strang,Gavin

  Marks,Kenneth

  Straw,Jack

  Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)

  Summerskill,HonDrShirley

  Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)

  Taylor, MrsAnn(BoltonW)

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Thomas,Datydd(Merioneth)

  Martin M(G'gowS'burn)

  Thomas,Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)

  Maxton,John

  Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Thorne,Stan(PrestonSouth)

  Meacher,Michael

  Tilley,John

  Mellish,RtHon Robert

  Tinn,James

  Mikardo,Ian

  Torney,Tom

  Millan, RtHonBruce

  Urwin, RtHon Tom

  Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mitchell,R.C. (Sotonltchen)

  Wainwright,E.(DearneV)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wainwright,R.(ColneV)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Morris, RtHon J. (Aberavon)

  Watkins,David

  Morton,George

  Weetch, Ken

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wellbeloved,James

  Mulley, RtHon Frederick

  Welsh,Michael

  Newens,Stanley

  White, Frank R.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  Ogden,Eric

  Whitehead,Phillip

  O'Halloran,Michael

  Whitlock,William

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wigley,Dafydd

  Orme, RtHon Stanley

  Willey,RtHon Frederick

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Williams,SirT.(W'ton)

  Palmer,Arthur

  Wilson,Gordon(DundeeE)

  Park,George

  Wilson, RtHonSirH.(H'ton)

  Parker,John

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Pavitt,Laurie

  Winnick,David

  Pendry,Tom

  Woodall,Alec

  Penhaligon,David

  Woolmer,Kenneth

  Powell,Raymond(Ogmore)

  Wrigglesworth,Ian

  Prescott,John

  Young, David (BoltonE)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Race, Reg

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Radice,Giles

  Mr. Ron Leighton and

  Richardson,Jo

  Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  NOES

  Adley,Robert

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

  Aitken,Jonathan

  Baker,Kenneth(Sf.M'bone)

  Alison,Michael

  Baker,Nicholas(NDorset)

  Arnery,RtHonJulian

  Banks,Robert

  Ancram,Michael

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Arnold,Tom

  Bell,SirRonald

  Atkins, RtHonH.(S'thorne)

  Bendall,Vivian

  Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)

  Bennett,SirFrederiC(T'day)

  234

  Benyon,Thomasf(A'don)

  Garel-Jones,Tristan

  Benyon,W.(Buckingham)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Berry, HonAnthony

  Goodhart,Philip

  Best, Keith

  Goodlad,Alastair

  Bevan, DavidGilroy

  Gorst,John

  Biffen, RtHonJohn

  Gow, Ian

  Biggs-Davison,John

  Gower,Sir Raymond

  Blackburn,John

  Grant,Anthony(HarrowC)

  Body,Richard

  Gray, Hamish

  Bonsor,SirNicholas

  Greenway,Harry

  Boscawen,HonRobert

  Grieve, Percy

  Bowden,Andrew

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

  Boyson,DrRhodes

  Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)

  Braine,SirBernard

  Grist, Ian

  Bright,Graham

  Grylls,Michael

  Brinton,Tim

  Gummer,JohnSelwyn

  Brittan,Leon

  Hamilton, HonA.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)

  Brotherton,Michael

  Hampson,Dr Keith

  Brown,M.(BriggandScun)

  Hannam,John

  Browne,John(Winchester)

  Haselhurst,Alan

  Bruce-Gardyne,John

  Hastings,Stephen

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Budgen,Nick

  Hawkins,Paul

  Bulmer,Esmond

  Hawksley,Warren

  Burden,SirFrederick

  Hayhoe,Barney

  Butcher,John

  Heddle,John

  Butler, HonAdam

  Henderson,Barry

  Carlisle, John(LutonWest)

  Heseltine, RtHon Michael

  Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hicks,Robert

  Carlisle, RtHonM. (R'c'n)

  Higgins, RtHon Terence L.

  Chalker,Mrs. Lynda

  Hill,James

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Chapman,Sydney

  Holland, philip(Carlton)

  Churchill,W.S.

  Hooson,Tom

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

  Hordern,Peter

  Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon SirGeoffrey

  Clegg,SirWalter

  Howell,RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)

  Cockeram,Eric

  Howell,Ralph(NNorfolk)

  Colvin,Michael

  Hunt,David(Wirral)

  Cope,John

  Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

  Cormack,Patrick

  Hurd,HonDouglas

  Corrie,John

  Irving,Charles(Cheltenham)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Jenkin, RtHon Patrick

  Cranborne,Viscount

  Jessel,Toby

  Crouch,David

  JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Jopling,RtHonMichael

  Dorrell,Stephen

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

  Kaberry,SirDonald

  Dover,Denshore

  Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kershaw,Anthony

  Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

  Kimball,Marcus

  Durant,Tony

  King, RtHon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight,MrsJill

  Eden, RtHon Sir John

  Knox,David

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lamont,Norman

  Eggar,Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Elliott,SirWilliam

  Langford-Holt,SirJohn

  Emery, Peter

  Latham,Michael

  Eyre,Reginald

  Lawrence,Ivan

  Fairbairn,Nicholas

  Lawson, RtHon Nigel

  Fairgrieve,Russell

  Lee,John

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Lennox-Boyd,HonMark

  Farr,John

  Lester Jim(Beeston)

  Fell,Anthony

  Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Finsberg,Geoff rey

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Loveridge,John

  Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'ghN)

  Lyell,Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

  Macfarlane,Neil

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor,John

  FQrman,Nigel

  MacKay,John(Argyll)

  Fowler, RtHon Norman

  Macmillan, RtHonM.

  Fox,Marcus

  McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  McQuarrie,Albert

  Fry, Peter

  Madel,David

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Major,John

  Gardiner,George(Reigate)

  Marland,Paul

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Marten,Neil(Banbury)

  235

  Mather,Carol

  Sainsbury,HonTimothy

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Scott,Nicholas

  Mawby, Ray

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mawhinney,DrBrian

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

  Shelton,William(Streatham)

  Mayhew,Patrick

  Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)

  Mellor,David

  Shepherd,Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Miller,Hal(B'grove)

  Silvester,Fred

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Sims,Roger

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Miscampbell,Norman

  Smith,Dudley

  Moate,Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Molyneaux,James

  Speller,Tony

  Monro,Hector

  Spence,John

  Montgomery,Fergus

  Spicer,Jim (West Dorset)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

  Morris, M.(N'hamptonS)

  Sproat,Ian

  Morrison, HonC.(Devizes)

  Squire,Robin

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  Stainton, Keith

  Mudd,David

  Stanbrook,lvor

  Murphy,Christopher

  Stanley,John

  Myles, David

  Steen,Anthony

  Neale,Gerrard

  Stevens,Martin

  Needham,Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

  Neubert,Michael

  Stokes,John

  Newton,Tony

  StradlingThomas.J.

  Normanton,Tom

  Tapsell, Peter

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor,Robert(CroydonNW)

  Onslow,Cranley

  Tebbit,Norman

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Osborn,John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, John(Harrow, West)

  Thompson,Donald

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Thornton,Malcolm

  Page, Richard (SWHerts)

  Townend,John(Bridlington)

  Parkinson,Cecil

  Townsend,CyrilD, (B'heath)

  Parris, Matthew

  Trotter,Neville

  Patten,Christopher(Bath)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Vaughan, DrGerard

  Pattie,Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Waddington,David

  Percival,SirIan

  Wakeham.John

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave,HonWilliam

  Pink,R.Bonner

  Walker-Smith, RtHonSirD.

  Pollock,Alexander

  Wall,Patrick

  Porter,Barry

  Waller, Gary

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

  Walters,Dennis

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Ward, John

  Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

  Warren,Kenneth

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Watson,John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wells,Bowen

  Raison,Timothy

  Wheeler,John

  Rathbone,Tim

  Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Whitney,Raymond

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wickenden,Keith

  Renton,Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wilkinson,John

  Rhys Williams, SirBrandon

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Ridley,HonNicholas

  Wolfson,Mark

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

  Rippon, RtHonGeoffrey

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Rossi,Hugh

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Rost, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 255.

  Division No. 61

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley,Robert

  Alison,Michael

  Aitken,Jonathan

  Amery, RtHon Julian

  236

  Ancram, Michael

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Arnold,Tom

  Fry, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Galbraith, HonT. G. D.

  Atkins, Robert(Presfon/V)

  Gardiner,George(Reigate)

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

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Baker.Kenneth(St. M'bone)

  Garel-Jones,Tristan

  Baker, Nicholas(NDorset)

  Glyn, DrAlan

  Banks,Robert

  Goodhart,Philip

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Goodlad,Alastair

  Bell,SirRonald

  Gorst,John

  Bendall,Vivian

  Gow, Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic(T'bay)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

  Grant, Anthony(HarrowC)

  Benson,W.(Buckingham)

  Gray, Hamish

  Best, Keith

  Greenway, Harry

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Grieve, Percy

  Biffen, RtHonJohn

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

  Biggs-Davison,john

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Blackburn,John

  Grist, Ian

  Body,Richard

  Grylls,Michael

  Bonsor,SirNicholas

  Gummer,JohnSelwyn

  Boscawen,HonRobert

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Boyson, DrRhodes

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Braine,SirBernard

  Hampson,DrKeith

  Bright,Graham

  Hannam,John

  Brittan,Leon

  Haselhurst,Alan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hastings,Stephen

  Brotherton,Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Brown, M. (BriggandScun)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Browne,John(Wincester)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bruce-Gardyne,John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Heddle,John

  Budgen,Nick

  Henderson,Barry

  Bulmer,Esmond

  Heseltine,RtHonMichael

  Burden,SirFrederick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butcher,John

  Hill,James

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, John(LutonWest)

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hooson,Tom

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

  Hordern,Peter

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Howell, Ralph(NNorfolk)

  Chapman,Sydney

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Churchill,W.S.

  Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hurd,HonDouglas

  Clegg, SirWalter

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Cockeram,Eric

  Jenkin, RtHon Patrick

  Colvin,Michael

  Jessel,Toby

  Cope,John

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Corrie,John

  Jopling,RtHonMichael

  Costain,SirAlbert

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kaberry,SirDonald

  Crouch,David

  Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Kershaw,Anthony

  Dorrell,Stephen

  Kimball, Marcus

  Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

  King, RtHon Tom

  Dover,Denshore

  Knight, MrsJill

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knox, David

  Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

  Lamont,Norman

  Durant,Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt,SirJohn

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Latham,Michael

  Edwards, Rt Hon N.(P'broke)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Eggar,Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Elliott,SirWilliam

  Lee,John

  Emery, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd,HonMark

  Eyre,Reginald

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

  Fairgrieve,Russell

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Loveridge,John

  Farr,John

  Lyell,Nicholas

  Fell,Anthony

  Macfarlane,Neil

  Finsberg,Geoffrey

  MacGregor,John

  Fisher, SirNigel

  MacKay,John(Argyll)

  Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'ghN)

  McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

  Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

  McNair-Wilson, P.(NewF'st)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Forman,Nigel

  Madel, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Major,John

  Fox,Marcus

  Marland,Paul

  237

  Marten,Neil(Banbury)

  Sainsbury,HonTimothy

  Mather,Carol

  Scott,Nicholas

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mawby, Ray

  Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)

  Mawhinney,DrBrian

  Shelton,William(Streatham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Mayhew,Patrick

  Shepherd,Richard

  Mellor,David

  Shersby,Michael

  Meyer, SirAnthony

  Silvester,Fred

  Mills,Iain(Meriden)

  Sims, Roger

  Mills, Peter(WestDevon)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Smith,Dudley

  Moate,Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Molyneaux,James

  Speller,Tony

  Monro,Hector

  Spence,John

  Montgomery,Fergus

  Spicer,Jim (WestDorset)

  Morgan,Geraint

  Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

  Morris, M.(N'hamptonS)

  Sproat,Ian

  Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

  Squire,Robin

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stainton,Keith

  Mudd,David

  Stanbrook,Ivor

  Murphy,Christopher

  Stanley,John

  Myles, David

  Steen,Anthony

  Neale,Gerrard

  Stevens, Martin

  Needham,Richard

  Stewart,Ian (Hitchin)

  Nelson,Anthony

  Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)

  Neubert,Michael

  StradlingThomas,J.

  Newton,Tony

  Tapsell, Peter

  Normanton,Tom

  Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)

  Onslow,Cranley

  Tebbit,Norman

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Osborn,John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thompson,Donald

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Thornton,Malcolm

  Page, Richard (SWHerts)

  Townend,John(Bridlington)

  Parkinson,Cecil

  Townsend, CyrilD.(B'heath)

  Parris,Matthew

  Trotter,Neville

  Patten,Christopher(Bath)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Patten,John (Oxford)

  Vaughan,DrGerard

  Pattie,Geoffrey

  Viggers,Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Waddington,David

  Percival,SirIan

  Wakeham,John

  Peyton, RtHon John

  Waldegrave,HonWilliam

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Pollock,Alexander

  Wall,Patrick

  Porter,Barry

  Waller, Gary

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

  Walters,Dennis

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Ward, John

  Price,SirDavid(Eastleigh)

  Warren,Kenneth

  Prior, RtHonJames

  Wells,John(Maidstone)

  Proctor, K.Harvey

  Wells,Bowen

  Pym,RtHonFrancis

  Wheeler,John

  Raison,Timothy

  Whitelaw, RtHon William

  Rathbone,Tim

  Whitney,Raymond

  Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)

  Wickenden,Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wiggin,Jerry

  Renton,Tim

  Wilkinson,John

  RhodesJames, Robert

  Williams,D.(Montgomery)

  RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

  Wolfson,Mark

  Ridley,HonNicholas

  Young,SirGeorge(Acton)

  Rifkind,Malcolm

  Rippon, RtHonGeoffrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, M. (CardiffNW)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Roberts,Wyn(Conway)

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Rossi, Hugh

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Beith, A. J.

  Adams,Allen

  Benn, RtHon A. Wedgwood

  Allaun,Frank

  Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Alton,David

  Bidwell,Sydney

  Anderson,Donald

  Booth,RtHonAlbert

  Archer,Rt Hon Peter

  Boothroyd,MissBetty

  Armstrong, RtHonErnest

  Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bradley,Tom

  Ashton,Joe

  Bray,DrJeremy

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Bagier,GordonA.T.

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

  Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)

  Brown,Ronald W.(H'ckn'yS)

  Barnett, RtHonJoel (H'wd)

  Buchan,Norman

  238

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

  Horam,John

  Campbell,Ian

  Howell, RtHon D.

  Campbell-Savours,Dale

  Howells,Geraint

  Canavan,Dennis

  Huckfield,Les

  Cant, R. B.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Carmichael,Neil

  Hughes,Mark(Durham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes,Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Cartwright,John

  Hughes,Roy (Newport)

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

  Janner,HonGreville

  Cohen,Stanley

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conlan,Bernard

  John,Brynmor

  Cowans, Harry

  Johnson,James(Hull West)

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

  Johnson,Walter(DerbyS)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Jones, RtHonAlec(Rh'dda)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Cryer,Bob

  Jones,Dan(Burnley)

  Cunliffe,Lawrence

  Kaufman, RtHon Gerald

  Cunningham,G.(IslingtonS)

  Kilfedder,James A.

  Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)

  Kilroy-Silk,Robert

  Dalyell,Tam

  Kinnock,Neil

  Davidson,Arthur

  Lambie,David

  Davies,RtHonDenzil(L'lli)

  Lamborn,Harry

  Davies,Ifor(Gower)

  Lamond,James

  Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

  Leadbitter,Ted

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

  Leighton, Ronald

  Deakins,Eric

  Lestor,MissJoan

  Dewar,Donald

  Lewis,Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Dixon,Donald

  Lewis,Ron(Carlisle)

  Dobson,Frank

  Litherland,Robert

  Dormand,Jack

  Lofthouse,Geoffrey

  Douglas,Dick

  Lyon,Alexander(York)

  Douglas-Mann,Bruce

  Lyons,Edward(Bradf'dW)

  Dubs,Alfred

  McCartney,Hugh

  Duffy,A. E. P.

  McElhone,Frank

  Dunn,James A.

  McGuire,Michael(lnce)

  Dunnett,Jack

  McKay,Allen(Penistone)

  Dunwoody,Hon MrsG.

  MacKenzie,RtHonGregor

  Eastham,Ken

  Maclennan,Robert

  Edwards,R. (W'hampt'nSE)

  McMahon,Andrew

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

  McNally,Thomas

  English,Michael

  McNamara,Kevin

  Ennals, RtHon David

  McWilliam,John

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Magee, Bryan

  Evans,John(Newton)

  Marks,Kenneth

  Ewing,Harry

  Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)

  Faulds,Andrew

  Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)

  Field, Frank

  Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)

  Flannery,Martin

  Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)

  Fletcher,Raymond(Ilkeston)

  Mason,Rt Hon Roy

  Fletcher,Ted(Darlington)

  Maxton,John

  Foot, RtHon Michael

  Maynard,MissJoan

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher,Michael

  Forrester,John

  Mellish,RtHon Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Mikardo,Ian

  Foulkes,George

  Millan,RtHon Bruce

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

  Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)

  Freeson, RtHon Reginald

  Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)

  Freud,Clement

  Mitchell,R.C.(Soton Itchen)

  Garrett,John(NorwichS)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  George,Bruce

  Morris, RtHonJ.(Aberavon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ginsburg,David

  Mulley, RtHonFrederick

  Golding,John

  Newens,Stanley

  Gourlay,Harry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Graham,Ted

  Ogden,Eric

  Grant,George(Morpeth)

  O'Halloran,Michael

  Grant,John(IslingtonC)

  O'Neill,Martin

  Grimond,RtHonJ.

  Orme, RtHon Stanley

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

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hardy, Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Harrison, RtHon Walter

  Palmer,Arthur

  Hart, RtHon Dame Judith

  Park, George

  Hattersley,RtHonRoy

  Parker,John

  Haynes,Frank

  Pavitt,Laurie

  Heffer,EricS.

  Pendry,Tom

  Hogg,N.(EDunb't'nshire)

  Penhaligon,David

  Holland,S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Powell,Raymond(Ogmore)

  HomeRobertson,John

  Prescott,John

  Homewood,William

  Price,C.(LewishamW)

  239

  Race, Reg

  Spearing,Nigel

  Radice, Giles

  Spriggs,Leslie

  Richardson,Jo

  Stallard, A.W.

  Roberts.Albert(Normanton)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D.(WIsles)

  Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)

  Stoddart,David

  Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)

  Stott,Roger

  Robertson,George

  Strang,Gavin

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Straw,Jack

  Rodgers,RtHonWilliam

  Summerskill,HonDrShirley

  Rooker, J.W.

  Taylor,MrsAnn(BoltonW)

  Roper,John

  Thomas,Dafydd(Merioneth)

  Rowlands,Ted

  Thomas.Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  Ryman,John

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Sever,John

  Thomas,DrR.(Carmarthen)

  Sheerman,Barry

  Thome,Stan(PrestonSouth)

  Sheldon, Rt HonR.

  Tilley,John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tinn,James

  Short, MrsRenée

  Torney,Tom

  Silkin,RtHonJ.(Deptford)

  Urwin, RtHonTom

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Silverman,Julius

  Wainwright,E.(DearneV)

  Skinner,Dennis

  Wainwright,R.(ColneV)

  Smith,Cyril(Rochdale)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Watkins,David

  240

  Weetch,Ken

  Wilson, RtHonSirH.(H'ton)

  Wellbeloved,James

  Wilson,William(C'trySE)

  Welsh,Michael

  Winnick,David

  White, FrankR.

  Woodall,Alec

  White,J.(G'gowPollok)

  Woolmer,Kenneth

  Whitehead,Phillip

  Wrigglesworth,Ian

  Whitlock,William

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wigley,Dafydd

  Willey, RtHon Frederick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Mr. Joseph Dean and

  Williams,SirT.(W'ton)

  Mr. George Morton.

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House acknowledges that at a time of severe economic recession, the policies of Her Majesty's Government offer the only effective way to real economic recovery, the creation of lasting jobs and a decent standard of living for all the people of this country while at the same time protecting the most vulnerable groups in society.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Northern Ireland (Election Expenses)
  10.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member is addressing the House and other hon. Members must not stand this side of the Bar.
  Mr. Alison: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.
  This order seeks to raise the maximum amount which may be spent by candidates contesting district council elections in Northern Ireland. The increase will compensate for inflation since March 1977 when the limit was last fixed.
  The current limit of £72 plus 1·5p per registered elector in the district electoral area will be increased to £110 plus 2·3p per elector. In percentage terms this will mean an increase of just over 53 per cent. This is closely in line with the increase in the general level of prices since March 1977. These, of course, are limits on expenditure by candidates and do not involve public funds.
  I commend to the House this limited but important measure which will ensure that candidates in the local elections in May can more effectively put their case before the electorate.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Like most amending legislation, the draft order appears on the face of it to be limited in scope. Indeed, one could say that the changes are contained in the equivalent of one line of print in article 2, which substitutes £110 for £72 and 2·3p for l·5p.
  An hon. Member accustomed to the normal electoral process might be excused for assuming that each candidate in each seat is permitted to spend up to the sum in the new scale. The order does not say that, if that candidate is joined by another of like mind and belonging to the same party, the two are not permitted to spend double the amount but that in that case the total sum must be reduced by one-quarter. If they should be joined or assisted in the battle by yet another candidate, the sum would be reduced by one-third. After that, woe betide any party that fields, say, five candidates in any one area. They would be forced to campaign on the lower scale of the three candidates.
  Hon. Members do not realise that this crazy arrangement results from an equally crazy electoral system known as proportional representation, and it is to cope with that crazy system that we are discussing this order tonight. That system was introduced in 1973 with the object of "breaking the mould." That decision is the real reason why we have such a collection of political parties in Northern Ireland and why there can be no political stability in Northern Ireland until proportional representation is abolished.
  242
  In times past, it was perhaps easy for hon. Members to ignore the truth of what I have just said. But now that "mould-breaking" has become a sort of Limehouse pastime, is it not politically dangerous to maintain proportional representation in one part of the United Kingdom and refuse it to others which have not yet been cured of all sorts of fanciful notions, such as centre parties, coalitions and other such political monstrosities? Will not the two big battalions in this House feel very vulnerable when they are faced with a reasonable request from reasonable men for just a teeny-weeny bit of "mouldbreaking", just enough to get the centre party on to its feet? I hope that the two main parties will stoutly resist any such pressure. However, they would be in a much stronger position if the political itinerants were unable to point to a part of the United Kingdom that is forced to tolerate devices that are likely to be damaging to democracy in Britain as Britain has known it.
  While giving a welcome of sorts to the order, I hope that this will be the last time that we make any sort of legislative arrangements for elections held under proportional representation. My party takes the view that the sooner we are done with it, the better.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The only argument that we have heard against proportional representation is that it makes the major parties vulnerable. On that basis we should welcome proportional representation, because anything that makes the major parties think about their policies and makes them realise that they are not on an easy ride into Parliament and into power provides a service to the community.
  I should have thought that Northern Ireland is an example of how proportional representation has in one way enriched political life in the Province. By bringing forward people with different views, for example, on the Unionist side, the people have a greater choice and can pick and choose. No longer are they presented, as they were at election after election for years in Northern Ireland, with the choice "Vote for Official Unionist or you will hand the constituency over to a Republican." It means that the people can vote, and by exercising their vote they can make a choice between the different brands of Unionist. For that reason, I make clear in this House that proportional representation has contributed greatly to political life in the Province. Of course, the major party, for instance the Official Unionist Party, feels vulnerable because it has been shown to be a monolithic party that is more interested in keeping power than in working for the good of Ulster and the people of Ulster. I merely wish to place on record that proportional representation is not the dangerous ill that some make it out to be.
  Mr. Michael English rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before that line is pursued too far, I should say that it is out of order.
  Mr. English: Before the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) resumes his place, I wish to point out that the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland is proportional on only one occasion in the European elections and that in other cases it is not a proportional representation system.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us leave it at that.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In briefly commending the order the Minister of State described the expenses allowable to candidates as being intended to assist them in presenting their case to the electors. I wonder whether he realises—I am sure that the House does not realise—that in the elections at which the order will first be effective, the local government elections in May, there will be no question of the candidates having electors to whom they present their views in the same sense as candidates at local government elections in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Northern Ireland is divided into wards for the purposes of the electoral register. It is not divided into wards for the purposes of elections. There are the same number of candidates as there are wards, but the candidates have no relationship with the wards. The candidates have no electors. The councillors who will be elected will have no specific electors of the ward who elected them, and that mutual responsibility of electors and elected is absent from the elections in Northern Ireland that will take place in May.
  It is a mockery of the electoral system. It is a mockery that would not by tolerated for an instant on this side of the Irish sea. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) in hoping, and verging upon prediction, that before long the impossibility of maintaining in one part of the kingdom a non-democratic system that is rejected by the remainder of the system will have been seen and acted upon.
  10.38 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed at the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). His party was a part of the United Ulster Unionist coalition that put forward a Convention report. The report stated that the coalition of Unionists would accept a form of proportional representation but preferred the list system. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report. That was the consensus of Unionists at that time.
  We are dealing with expenses and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman on the division of expenses are important. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has talked about the differences between wards and how candidates stand. The candidates stand for areas and in the various areas there may be three seats or five seats. When those seats are being fought, naturally the candidates of one party run together. I want to know whether those candidates running together have the same opportunity of spending the same amount of money in their election as a candidate of a party which has only one contender in the area. In my opinion, they have not. But I should like that confirmed. I should also like to have the figures confirmed.
  At the Convention election, there was a very broad coalition. Candidates running for different parties had similar advertising and joint meetings. The law was not rigidly enforced on that occasion, and the parties put in their returns in keeping with their own single-party candidates. That is a fact. We had better get this matter straight. If two parties with candidates running in an area have a general agreement on coalition, what is the position with regard to those candidates?
  I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) who spoke about proportional representation.
  244
  We have been over the question of the single transferable vote. It does not affect me. I had an outright majority in the European election, anyway. I would rather have the first-past-the-post system, for one reason—that it is in keeping with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not like this system which lines us up with the Republic of Ireland. I never did like it. But there is much strength in what the hon. Member for Down, North has said, because it means that the vote of any party is not decimated. If I am a Unionist, I can transfer my vote and I can see that at the end of the day a Unionist will get my vote. I am not forced, as we have been forced in Northern Ireland, to vote for a particular candidate under the threat that "If you do not vote for us, the Republicans will take the seat". That has been the main threat that has been held over us.
  That system was introduced by the enemies of Ulster, not by our friends. But they overstepped themselves, and instead of hindering Unionism, I believe that the thing that they had planned for its destruction was its salvation. So far as I am concerned, if one has a majority one will be elected anyway.
  Mr. English: As one who comes from a party that has just decided its policy by choosing motions by single transferable vote, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I feel rather deeply about the issue. Does he realise that two successive Republic of Ireland Governments of different parties have recommended that the single transferable vote system should be scrapped in the Republic because it is so disproportionate, and that in the last four elections, on two occasions the party that gained votes lost?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted to answer that interesting question, I remind him that the order has nothing to do with the voting system. It relates to the limits of candidates' election expenses.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: But it has, in a measure, to do with the system, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were to go by an ordinary system, we should not have the ridiculous nonsense that we are discussing tonight about how to split candidates, because every candidate would be entitled to that amount of money.
  But that is not what is happening. That is not what is before the House tonight. Therefore, in a sense, although I shall not stray into this area, I must point out that when the legislation was going through the House we hammered the Government on that point. We told them that the Republic wanted to be rid of the system, but they would not listen to us. So, of course, they are hearing it again this evening.
  The Minister must come clean and spell this out clearly so that candidates will know the amount of money that they can spend and whether, if they run in a broad coalition, they are entitled to claim that they are spending money only within their own parties and that the others who are with them, but not of them, can spend the same amount. That is the matter to which the Minister must apply himself and spell out clearly. Perhaps he will tell us why, if that is the law, it was not observed in relation to the Convention, and why the then Government closed their eyes—not just one eye, like Nelson, but both eyes—on that occasion.
  Mr. Alison: I should like to start by replying to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North

  245
  (Rev. Ian Paisley) in relation to the split of the allowable individual candidate's limit of expenditure. I am advised that the law provides that where there are two joint candidates—that is to say, candidates who share staff, have the same committee rooms or publish a joint address the maximum expense which each may incur is threequarters of the maximum for a single candidate, and where there are more than two joint candidates, the maximum for each is two-thirds of that for a single candidate.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to something which goes rather beyond the concept of common staff, common committee room and a joint election address. It was a somewhat looser coalition. Perhaps he will allow me to take notice of that wider question and advise him in writing as to exactly how the legal point would affect it. However, my advice at present is that this is a fairly tightly specified joint candidature in the way in which I have described it.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me on a point of clarification. Does joint staff include the same agent, or is it specified anywhere what joint staff means?
  Mr. Alison: Again, I must ask my hon. Friend to allow me to take notice of that and advise him in writing. However, at first sight it is anything which could be considered as paid or remunerated staff, agent, sub-agent or assistant agent. I shall certainly verify that.
  For the rest, I have attempted to take brief notes of the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The notes that I made were brief and succinct—against PR, pro PR, against PR and pro PR. That seems to be about the sum total of the contributions. I thought that the hon. Member for Down, North came down slightly ambivalently but with some slight sympathy in regard to the PR arrangements which exist in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. English: It is possible to be in favour of PR and against STV.
  Mr. Alison: I take that point. The measure is a modest one. It has no profound significance other than that of trying to catch up with inflation. I hope that the two pillars of Hercules, if I may so describe the representation of Northern Ireland on both sides of the House, will allow us to navigate this small, modest craft through the debate in order to make this offset compensation for inflation which will be in the public interest.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Fisheries)
  10.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
  That the draft Fisheries Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 10 December, be approved.
  The purposes of the order are to vary the maximum punishments and, in some cases, the mode of trial, for certain offences against Northern Ireland Acts dealing with fisheries, to amend provisions of those Acts which relate to sea fishing and to make fresh provision for the culture of shellfish.
  The changes in the penal provisions have three aims: first, they are a response to a continued high level of unlawful fishing—especially in the Londonderry area—which is aggravated by the continued fall in salmon stocks; secondly, they seek a standardisation of penalties as between the Foyle area and the rest of Northern Ireland and as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain; and, thirdly, they take account of the fall in the value of money caused by inflation. The other amendments made by the order cure deficiencies in the present legislation.
  I am sure that the House would like me to go through the articles of the draft order. I shall do so briefly, and I shall try to explain their main purpose. The first two articles—the title and commencement, and the interpretation—are self-explanatory. Article 3 amends the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, the Diseases of Fish Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and the Fish Industry Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 by giving effect to the changes set out in schedule 1 to the order.
  Unlawful dealings in salmon or trout and the taking of "unseasonable" fish will, in future, be punishable on indictment in the Crown courts instead of solely in magistrates' courts. The regulation of unlawful dealings is particularly important, because the unlicensed netting of salmon is encouraged by the availability of ready outlets in hotels and restaurants. The severity of the proposed punishments reflect the Government's concern about the extent of poaching. This constitutes a serious threat to salmon stocks. The problem is especially serious in the Foyle area.
  Penalties for offences under the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952 have been revised in the order in conjunction with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That Act applies only to the Londonderry area—that is to say, the part of the basin of the River Foyle that lies within Northern Ireland. The rest of the basin, of course, lies in the Republic of Ireland, and the whole of it is administered as a unit by the Foyle Fisheries Commission under the title of the "Foyle area". It is important that the fishery law throughout the Foyle area—including penalties for offences—should be uniform, and I understand that legislation will be promoted in the Republic of Ireland on the lines of part I of schedule 1 to the present order. The punishments proposed are, as far as possible, also uniform with those for similar offences throughout the rest of Northern Ireland. Uniformity has also been sought with Great Britain by bringing their levels in line with the maximum punishments for fishery offences fixed by schedule 1 to the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977.

  247
  Article 4 amends the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 by extending the existing powers contained in the Act to enable the Department of Agriculture to make regulations requiring the keeping of records and the making of returns. At present, in terms of sea fish the regulations apply only to wholesalers and processors. In future, they will also apply to sea fishermen and those who auction or deal in sea fish at the point of landing.
  The information provided by catch statistics is an important aid to the Government in formulating policies. The accuracy of the catch reporting system that operates at ports of landing is also of considerable importance if conservation measures are to be successful.
  The provisions contained in article 5 give the Department of Agriculture powers of inquiry and of examination in relation to all licensed fish farms, and are mainly concerned with finding a more suitable position in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 for provisions formerly in section 137(3) of that Act. However the powers in that section referred only to shellfish fisheries. The new provision will extend to fresh water fish farms and will enable authorised officers to enter and examine all things used in the running of a fish farm to determine whether the licensees are complying with the licence conditions.
  The maintenance of strict hygienic conditions in these establishments is of the greatest importance if they are not to become breeding grounds for disease. This is recognised to be very much in the interests of fish farmers and of the continuing viability and prosperity of the industry. I am glad to say that the standard of hygiene in existing fish farms is very high.
  Article 6 would replace, in a more simplified form, existing provisions that enable regulations to be made for the management and conservation of sea fisheries. Where, in the interests of conservation, restrictions are imposed on taking particular kinds of fish, the present law limits the period of those restrictions to one year at a time. That can give rise to uncertainty and is unsatisfactory from both the fishermen's and the Government's points of view. In future, the duration of regulations will be fixed by the regulations in the light of prevailing circumstances. The penalty for contravening a regulation under this article has been raised to a maximum of £1,000, which is in line with comparable Great Britain legislation.
  Article 7 provides for a maximum fine of £1,000 for bringing to land, for landing and for selling or being in possession of fish caught in contravention of the regulations that I have described. Again, this corresponds to the penalty in Great Britain.
  Article 8, which implements schedule 2, replaces existing sections of the 1966 Act relating to oyster bed licences and oyster fishery orders—they overlapped to some extent—with a single set of provisions for the granting of shellfish fishery licences. The new provisions re-enact to a large extent the substance of the existing ones, but they overcome a difficulty that has been encountered in regard to the grant of licences in respect of Crown foreshore.
  Article 9 extends the powers of an authorised sea fishery officer to enable him to require the co-operation of the crew of a fishing boat that he boards in the course of his duties.
  248
  Although the amendments made by the order are comparatively minor, they will make useful improvements in the legislation affected. I commend the order to the House.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: The Opposition welcome the order. It began life with the previous Administration. We are therefore bound to support it, with few reservations. We welcome in particular those alterations which improve the conservation procedures and inrease the punishments for contravening the regulations. These are in the best interests of the fishermen in Northern Ireland, who look to the operation of such regulations to assure them of stable stocks.
  The fishing industry in Northern Ireland is small but is important to the Province. In 1979, 315 boats in Northern Ireland were responsible for landing fish to the value of £6½ million. A sizeable number of the people are involved in the fishing and fish processing industries. The health of the industry as a whole is vital to the people of Ardglass, Portavogie and Kilkeel, not to mention a medley of smaller fishing ports and marine fish farming interests within Northern Ireland.
  It is precisely because of the significance of the fishing industry to these areas of Northern Ireland that I wish to make a number of comments on the order. I should like to question the Minister about its operation and relevance to the industry, which currently operates in a most adverse economic climate. I am pleased to note that the penalties for infringement of fishing regulations are to be increased significantly. Several maximum penalties are to be raised, some by as much as 400 per cent.
  The severity of these penalties will no doubt act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise use incorrrect gear or fish during the close season. Yet of themselves they are insufficient to enforce the regulations which are essential to conserve the fish stock in the waters around Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister, as a consequence of the order, to make provision for fishery protection vessels. This would be an act in conjunction with the spirit of the order. I would also like to know whether the Minister intends to update the vessels in operation. Many of them are outmoded and unable to operate efficiently. Such action would be welcomed by the vast majority of fishermen in Northern Ireland. It would ensure that those who obey the law in the best interests of the fishing industry do not suffer any disadvantage for so doing.
  For the law to gain adherence, the penalties must be enforceable. I seek an assurance from the Minister that every effort will be made to enforce the regulations as laid down by the order and other legislation pertaining to the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
  Article 4 refers to records and returns—the Minister said little about these matters—to be made by sea fishermen and fish salesmen. Such documentation will undoubtedly work to the greater benefit of those involved in the industry. Of that I have no doubt, but I should like the Minister to spell out more clearly what he means by records and returns. I sincerely hope that the necessary forms are kept as simple as possible and that the system does not become too bureaucratic. Those in the fishing industry, as the House knows, work long and hard, so the paper work should be kept to a minimum.

  249
  I turn to the section of the order that deals with shellfish, and particularly to the details of the operation of the licences under schedule 2. The close attention which is being paid at the moment—not by the Treasury Bench—to this industry is clear evidence of the advance of shellfishing in Northern Ireland over the past three years or so.
  The industry is one of the very few success stories of the Province in recent times. In particular, the value and production of Pacific oysters has progressed markedly. In three years that industry has grown from zero to about £100,000. I was fortunate for a period as a Minister to oversee part of this success story. I can mention one company in particular, Cuan Sea Fisheries, which is highly successful in oyster production.
  In many respects the legislation before us is far advanced in Northern Ireland, more advanced than in the rest of the United Kingdom. From paragraph 136 of schedule 2, this will be apparent to all and certainly very welcome to the shell fishermen in Northern Ireland. It gives them considerable protection against poaching and offers a measure of security which their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom do not have. I believe this is the result of good consultation with the shell fishermen in Northern Ireland. The Minister would do well if he were to pass on this example of discussion and negotiation to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before the Committee stage of his Bill has been finalised in order that the United Kingdom shell fishermen can have the same protection as those in Northern Ireland.
  The production of shellfish is clearly an area of growth in Northern Ireland, and as such is recognised by this order. Therefore, I should like to have a number of assurances that the industry will receive full protection in future. For instance, will the Minister ensure that potential areas for shellfish cultivation are not designated as conservation areas before the possibilities for that cultivation are fully considered? Again, if he could act in line with his predecessor on this to ensure that there is close contact with the shell fishermen in Northern Ireland I am sure that we could have a good, clear period of discussion before decisions of that kind are taken.
  Secondly, there is the question of the importation of live shellfish for human consumption in Northern Ireland. Is it to be permitted without a licence? I ask this in view of the diseases which have beset oyster beds in Spain, but particularly in France and which if offloaded in Northern Ireland for whatever reason could introduce a serious handicap to the industry.
  I ask these questions because I am concerned to see that the shell fishing industry in Northern Ireland obtains the maximum possible help from the Government. I know that the Minister's predecessor shares this view, for without his consistent pressure the welcome EEC grant to this industry would not have been forthcoming. I am sure that that is welcome to the industry and the House.
  I move on to view the order in the context of the present state of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. As a measure designed to tighten controls, increase efficiency and promote more rationalisation in management, the order comes before the House at a most auspicious time for the industry.
  In 1979, which was recognised as a good year, the upward trend in the value of sea fish landings hit a new record of more than £6½ million. We do not yet know the figures for 1980, but all the indications are that it was one
  250
  of the worst seasons for many years. Prices are at rock bottom and I understand that the market for nethrops, which is, by value, the most profitable fish crop, is at an all-time low.
  In the past few days I have been in touch with many fishermen in the Province and they all tell the same story of the poor state of the market. One told me of dumping between 150 and 200 boxes of fish a night in recent weeks and mentioned that the price of fish was too low to meet even the EEC withdrawal price to qualify for compensation. I hope that the Minister has more information than I on the industry, and perhaps he will comment on its prospects.
  Can the Minister see any way of alleviating the added burden of the high price of fuel being paid by fishermen in Northern Ireland? Some say that it is up to 50 per cent. of their outlay. With those few questions and reservations, I, too, commend the order.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall detain the House for only a couple of minutes. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who spoke for the Opposition in a splendid isolation that has only just been diminished, mentioned the severity of the punishments provided for and said that they were required. I am sure that that is the opinion of the whole House.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to enforcement. Can my hon. Friend tell us the present provision for enforcement, what vessels are used, what police are employed, to what extent the Garda Siochana or the Irish Naval Service may be involved in the Foyle area, and what measures are proposed to improve protection?
  Schedule 4 sets out amendments to the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and mentions the definition of waters within British fishery limits. Why has it been necessary to amplify the definition? My hon. Friend will recall the opinion—I would say the perverse opinion—of a certain magistrate in Northern Ireland who stated that the territorial waters of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland are within the territorial waters of the Republic of Ireland.
  I presume that the Crown did not appeal against that opinion because it was not worthy of much consideration. I hope that I am not in contempt of court in saying that, but is there any connection between the definition and that judgment?
  11.9 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Since the recent Government changes, fishery has taken leave of this House, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and has moved to another place, so that the Minister of State in this House finds himself wearing yet another hat—in this case, a seaman's hat.
  However, although the Minister is in a sense only deputising for his noble Friend, he will be very welcome in the fishing ports—large and small—in my constituency. I am sure that he will find it in every way advantageous to pay an early visit to the Mourne coast and to learn to know both the places and the people, their interests and their difficulties.
  This measure is essentially a conservation measure. The fishermen of Northern Ireland are, with good reason, strong conservationists. Genuine conservation measures and the maintenance and the impartial application of those

  251
  measures will always have their support. Having consulted them on the terms of this order, I find them to be in favour both of the enhancement of the penalties and of the improvement of the means of enforcement.
  The Bill contains substantial provisions which reflect the growing importance of fish farming, as generally so in the Province of Northern Ireland. That was in a way led by shellfish farming, but fish farming has since become generalised. In the Fisheries Bill which is before the House, there are provisions in part IV—which do not apply to Northern Ireland—that correspond to a number of the provisions either in this order or in the principal Acts which are amended by the order.
  My hon. Friends and I have given considerable thought to the fact that Northern Ireland has not been brought within the full scope of the Fisheries Bill. We accept that so far as fish fanning is concerned, the legislation on the subject in Northern Ireland has on the whole been in advance of that in the rest of the kingdom, and that there are certain special problems which form the basis of our licensing system which the order reinforces. Nevertheless, we believe that in due course, in this as in other areas, it will be advantageous for there to be a general regime for the whole of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. We take satisfaction from the fact that the new authority set up by the Fisheries Bill will be a United Kingdom authority, on which we hope that Northern Ireland will be directly and personally represented. Therefore, in a sense, the order is for Northern Ireland complementary to other provisions in the Fisheries Bill.
  Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) placed emphasis on the importance of shellfish for the fisheries of Northern Ireland. Shellfish constitutes the most important single catch within the totals mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. There has recently been considerable anxiety as to the diminution of the stocks of the principal shellfish caught round the coasts. It is in accordance with this that the order brings forward considerable strengthening of the measures for the policing and surveillance of conservation. Some of them are very strict indeed, though those whom I have consulted would regard them as nevertheless being fair and reasonable.
  One is in article 7 and has a counterpart in the schedule attached to article 8, namely, the addition of possession of fish contrary to the provisions of regulations as being a criminal offence, and possession in certain cases not qualified by the term 'for the purposes of sale' but possession pure and simple.
  At this point I want to offer my thanks to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who has gone to fish in other waters, for the helpfulness and open mind with which he considered the difficulties that I put to him. As the order was originally drawn, the provision referred to shellfish of any description that might be 'specified by regulations'. Apart from the lobster, there are three other types of shellfish that are important in Northern Ireland—the nephrops or Norwegian lobster, the scallop and a delectable mollusc that goes by the delectable name of queenie. To make possession of under-sized lobsters pure and simple a punishable offence is perfectly reasonable, since at all stages in the transactions those who are in possession of them have a full opportunity of knowing perfectly well whether the fish that they are
  252
  handling are in contravention of the size regulations. However, that could not possibly be true of the other three types of shellfish. Consequently, there was considerable anxiety about the unfairness of such regulation if it was extended beyond the lobster. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having in terms—and this will be found on page 19 of the order—restricted the scope of that severe measure to the lobster.
  Conservation and the rules drawn up for the purposes of conservation depend heavily on scientific evidence—that is to say, upon evidence that it is not within the power of the layman and those representing fishermen as Members of Parliament to test. They have to take very much on trust, as do the fishery Ministers, the results thrown up by the international scientists who are policing the stocks of the various fish.
  Off the Mourne coast, considerable hardship has been caused in recent years and considerable irritation and anger has been aroused by the virtual or complete closure of the Mourne herring fishery in each of the past four years. My constituents who are engaged in fishing and processing were able to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the sample on which the scientific advice was based was taken in too narrow a timespan of the year. In order to judge the effect on herring stocks relevant to the Mourne fishery, it was necessary for the samples to be taken over a much longer period of the year than those carrying out the investigations were doing.
  That point was taken by the hon. Gentleman, who promised to ensure that the investigations would in future extend over the period requested by my constituents. I believe that that has been done. I am anxious, and so are they, to learn the outcome, in the hope that it will be found that the Mourne herring fishery, at any rate on a limited scale, can be opened again in the early autumn of this year. I hope therefore that the present Minister will be good enough to cause to be brought before him the papers on the subject and to bring me and my constituents up to date on that point, which for the fishermen, particularly of Annalong in County Down, is of crucial importance.
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred to the expression—and it occurs elsewhere in the order—"waters within British fishery limits". I should be grateful if the Minister, when he replies, will confirm exactly what that term means for the purposes of the order. Does it mean the three-mile limit, does it mean the 12-mile temporary limit under the accession treaty to the EEC, or does it mean the sovereign waters, which extend to 200 miles, or the median line? Whatever it may mean within the scope of the order, there will be no satisfactory conservation, and no sense of justice and fairness on the part of Ulster fishermen, unless, within British sovereign waters, control of fishing and control of the enforcement of conservation lie in the hands of Britain.
  For too long, during these last years, British fishermen, including Ulster fishermen, have had to watch enforcement being, very properly, exerted upon themselves under United Kingdom law while other EEC nationalities fishing in the same waters were able to snap their fingers both at the law and at the enforcement. Only national enforcement, and only national enforcement within the full sovereign waters of the respective nations, will be satisfactory, whatever the outcome of the negotiations for a common fisheries policy.

  253
  It would be beyond the scope of this debate to mark out the minimum requirements—and there are all too many reasons to fear that they are not being met—of a common fisheries policy. We are dealing with enforcement and conservation which, from any view, is one of the objects of the common fisheries policy. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the conservation measures, that these regulations strengthen and help to enforce, which will remain within our national hands within our national sovereign waters. If that is the case, I am sure that the Government can rely upon the support of the fishermen of Northern Ireland in the enforcement of the law—a law that should be enforced not only upon them but upon all who fish, or who are allowed to fish, in the same waters. If that happens, the order will contribute its meed of benefit both to the future fishing stocks and to the future fishing industry of the Province.
  11.23 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The remarks that we have heard from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the agitation and frustration of the fishermen of Ulster should be noted by the Minister and by all sections of the House. I agree with him that the law that is operated against the Ulster fishermen must also be operated against all fishermen in our territorial waters. There is a great building of resentment against what is happening at present. I am afraid that what we are doing tonight could be used against our fishermen if the Government surrender to the policies that have been advocated in the Common Market about giving up our territorial waters and only being granted 39 per cent. of our fishing grounds. When the order is passed, having received a fair wind from fishing interests in Northern Ireland, I should be greatly disturbed if the Government so used it after making an agreement with the EEC to surrender our rights and our fishing grounds. The Minister should take that on board.
  The fishing industry of Northern Ireland is now in a serious plight. I attended a meeting of the Newry and Mourne council the other day at which representatives from that area, speaking for the people and the fishermen there, raised the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, concerning the sad and sorry state in which the industry finds itself. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming and will be able to tell us the facts. Let him give us an accurate assessment of what is happening in the fishing industry. It is alarming to hear of the dumping of large quantities of fish, especially in Kilkeel.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde underlined the importance of the price of fuel oil for fishing. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us and perhaps tell us what our fishermen can hope for in the future in that respect.
  It is greatly to be regretted that the principal industries in Northern Ireland—agriculture and fisheries—have no Minister to represent them in the House now. I regard it as a serious mistake that that change was made when new Ministers were appointed to the Northern Ireland Office. The opportunity to question a Minister in this place on agriculture and fisheries has now been taken from the representatives of Northern Ireland, We have no Minister answerable in this House whom we can directly question on these important matters, yet this is the only forum in
  254
  which the representatives of Northern Ireland can question the Government and require answers to the questions put to them by their constituents. It was a grave error when the Government decided that the main industry of Northern Ireland should be relegated to another place so that the Minister responsible for it would not be answerable in the House of Commons. This is strongly resented by the farmers and the fishermen of Northern Ireland, and they have brought it to my attention time and again
  I cannot agree with the Minister that what we are doing tonight does not make major changes. I have carefully read the principal Act, and I see some big changes. I am not referring to the amounts of money or to the penalties. I am referring, for example, to artical 9 of the order, by which we are to add these words in the new paragraph (aa):
  "require the attendance of the master and of any other persons who are or have been on board the boat and require all such persons to do anything which appears to him to be necessary for facilitating the performance of his functions."
  That is a very wide net. Will the Minister explain the meaning of
  "to do anything which appears to him to be necessary for facilitating the performance of his functions"?
  Again, in paragraph (b) of article 9 we have the corresponding reference to "without reasonable excuse". Those words also are to be added. That is a substantisl change from the relevant subsection in the principal Act, as I am sure the Minister knows.
  What alarms me is that we are told that we need these heavier penalties because we need to preserve the rights of fishermen. But what is happening at the moment? If the Northern Ireland Office cannot police the present regulations, how can it expect to police these new regulations?
  We must know what steps the Minister will take. The media have told us about the Foyle fisheries, the invasion of people from the South of Ireland, the impossibility of the police doing anything about it, the confrontations, and so on. If the Government are unable to police the present regulations, how do they intend to police these regulations by saying "You must pay £1,000 or you will be brought before the court by indictment"? If they cannot catch the culprits now, they will not catch them in the future.
  The Government must explain what they intend to do. They must say how policing is done at present, and what additions will be made. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde asked what would happen to the patrol vessels, what further steps are to be taken, and how many more people will be employed.
  I remember sitting in the old Stormont Parliament at the beginning of the troubles, when draconian legislation was passed with which everybody agreed, but it could not be policed. What is the use of introducing deterrents if they cannot be policed? The Minister must tell us how much policing will cost, what he intends to do to ensure that the law is upheld, and what he thinks of the regulations, which I believe to be very wide indeed.
  Does he intend to appoint more protection officers? Does he intend to use the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is already hard-pressed in terms of security? The Minister should be forthcoming on this important matter.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Adam Butler: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer the various points that have been raised.

  255
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will understand if I do not cover all of them, some because of their technicality and some because of the time available.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right to say that I am not the Minister directly responsible for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland, yet I answer for such questions in the House. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) expressed in the House a feeling that he has expressed in public—that it is unfortunate, to use more moderate language than his, that the important agriculture and fisheries industries are not represented directly in the House of Commons. My noble Friend is a first-class Minister. I shall endeavour to represent the industries' interests in this Chamber to the best of my ability. I do not claim firsthand experience of the fishing industry but I have some experience of agriculture, which I hope will stand me in good stead in trying to do what I can for the hard-pressed fanners of the Province.
  I turn to the relationship between the Fisheries Bill that is going through Parliament and the order—a point drawn to our attention by the right hon. Member for Down, South. He is correct in saying that the first three parts and part V of the Bill deal with the United Kingdom as a whole and therefore have application in Northern Ireland, whereas part IV does not. He is right to say that much of what part IV will do for Britain is already subject to legislation and is operating in the Province. Where that is not so, this order will achieve the same result.
  The Fisheries Bill and the order recognise the split between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the United Kingdom and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, because the separate responsibilities of the two Departments are defined. The split also reflects the intention of the Government—with which the right hon. Member for Down, South does not agree—to see whether it is possible to move back to a system of devolved government, as opposed to the integrated system that the right hon. Gentleman would like.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked a number of questions, and some of them were echoed by other speakers. I am glad of the general welcome—which I expected—that the hon. Gentleman gave to what the order is trying to do. I am sure that he is right in what he said. The hon. Gentleman expressed some concern, as others have done, about the importance of policing these measures. It is self-evident that it is no good having regulations and penalties if those who break the regulations cannot be brought to book, but I think that the fact that the penalties have been increased in this substantial way will be some sort of deterrent. The sums about which we are talking as maxima are considerable—£1,000, or £2,000 in some cases—and will of themselves help to deter, but we need to police the provisions successfully. I am told that the co-operation that exists across the border in, for instance, the Foyle area is helping the commission to reduce the amount of poaching that has taken place over recent months, and this is to be welcomed.
  256
  Fishery protection vessels are not the direct responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, but that of the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the fishery authorities. I think that I can do no better than commend to those responsible what has been said tonight, because I endorse it.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will forgive me, I shall not now give him details of the various vessels employed, but will endeavour to give him that information by letter.
  I come now to the question of the common fisheries policy and the effect that an agreement will have on the Northern Ireland industry. It is a matter of great regret that it has still not been possible to come to an agreement, because uncertainty by itself is unhelpful. We believe that what we are trying to achieve will be of benefit to the industry as a whole, and therefore there is some urgency about trying to get agreement. As the House realises, the policy and the attempts to achieve agreement on it are not my responsibility.
  The question of sovereign waters was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I shall steer very carefully in trying to give an answer on this matter. The fishing limits were laid down by the 1970 Act, which extended them to 200 miles. They operate, except in so far as they meet the median line, between the Province and the mainland. With regard to the question of implementation of protection, it is my understanding that we are striving entirely for national enforcement and national responsibility over our waters.
  One or two detailed questions were raised about the importation of live shellfish for consumption. I cannot give an immediate answer, but it allows me to emphasise again the crucial importance of keeping fish farms free from disease. I said that it would do considerable damage to the reputation of the industry, which is growing well in the Province, if disease were to break out. Therefore, every reasonable measure should be taken to ensure that we continue with our present high standard of hygiene.
  I was asked to comment on the prospects for the industry. I shall do so only in the context of this order. It is correct that the industry and the fishermen of the Province, along with most of the fishermen of Great Britain, have been suffering. Indeed, they should benefit from a resolution of the present discussions with regard to a common fisheries policy. The fishermen in the Province have also been suffering severely from poaching and over-fishing. It is in those two areas particularly that we hope the order will be most effective. Therefore, for this evening, I hope that the House will accept that in approving the order—which I hope will be the case in a few moments—we shall have contributed to the future health of the industry in these two vital areas on conservation and poaching.
  I again commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Fisheries Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 10 December, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Gas Levy
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made for the levying from the British Gas Corporation of a levy in respect of certain gas supplied to them and for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received in respect of the levy or of interest on it.—[Mr. Lamont.]
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are we to have some explanation of the resolution?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It is for the Minister to decide whether he will give the House an explanation now or answer at the end of the debate, when he replies, the questions that are raised.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Edward Rowlands: We certainly need an explanation of the resolution. It is an extremely important measure. It paves the way for a major piece of taxation. I hope that the Minister will reply and explain in detail the effect of the resolution and the proposed gas levy.
  We wish to put down a basic marker on the proposed Gas Levy Bill. We shall not divide the House, but that should not be seen as an acceptance of the levy.
  In one respect the resolution is timely. The Government are at least coming clean. We have to go back many months to find the original explanation of the levy, but according to the Government's press releases it will not increase gas prices because of the arrangements that they are endeavouring to make with British Gas. However, it is evident that British Gas revenues and gas prices and British Gas customers have been and will continue to be used as a significant source of revenue for the Government. British Gas revenue and prices have been and will continue to be a source of Government taxation.
  Last Wednesday the Secretary of State confessed to the Select Committee on Energy that he was the culprit for the significant and rapid rise in gas prices. He confessed that he had enforced upon British Gas a monstrous programme of price increases, namely, 30 per cent. last year, another 25 per cent. this year, with more to follow in subsequent years.
  British Gas did not wish to impose upon its customers anything like such a programme of price increases in the time scale that has been demanded by the Government. It was the Secretary of State who accepted his responsibility for the increases before the Select Committee.
  The inevitable consequence of pursuing such price increases, along with the original target of 9 per cent., is to create a large windfall profit for British Gas. The Government knew that that was likely to happen and they wanted it to happen. It has been achieved at considerable expense to the domestic and industrial consumer, both large and small. The great potential of British Gas profits now justifies the raid on British Gas that is represented by the levy. It is a sort of Dick Turpin act in which British Gas is being expected to pay up and stand and deliver.
  What is to be the extent of the levy? How much will it deliver to the Government? At 10 minutes to midnight we are talking not about a marginal tax arrangement involving a few million pounds that can be dropped into some PSBR ocean but about a tax that from 1980 to 1983 could deliver about £ 1·2 billion to the British Government.
  258
  The levy will be, as it were, a windfall tax on British Gas. In the crucial year of 1982–83 we could be talking of £¾ billion finding its way to the Government. Is that right? What is the figure? If I am right, will the Minister confirm that this is not so much a windfall tax on British Gas but an election windfall tax for the election that will follow? It will be a contribution to the Conservative Party's expectation of a cut of more than 1p in the standard rate of tax. That is what £¾ billion pounds represents. I should be grateful if the Minister could state the amount of revenue expected from the gas levy that is the subject of this resolution.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, we shall have a chance to debate the gas levy at greater length when the Bill is introduced in the next week or so. I therefore merely state at this stage that we have some doubts, and believe that the levy is a breach of the financial understandings and arrangements that were made between the Government and British Gas last year. It is an open secret that British Gas was a reluctant partner, but a deal was struck last year with regard to the financial arrangements and the whole question of gas pricing. This is an additional and significant breach of that understanding of the three-year financial arrangement that was made with British Gas.
  Secondly, until we are able to scrutinise the proposed Bill we do not know what effects of the levy may be upon the longer-term investment programme for the industry. Again, that is a matter that must be subject to scrutiny when the Bill comes before the House.
  Despite the idea that this is some kind of retrospective tax on the southern gas fields, going back to pre-1975, and so on, we claim that it is nevertheless part and parcel of an overall Government policy of using British Gas revenues and prices as a form of revenue and taxation.
  As we have suggested over the past 18 months, this policy is imposing an unfair burden, here and now, upon domestic and industrial consumers, small firms and individuals. It especially hits small companies, which are desparately trying to compete in export markets. Again, there is no evidence in the resolution or, indeed, in any Government statement, that the levy, and the income and revenue derived from it, will be used to alleviate the unnecessary burdens on small consumers, be they domestic or industrial. On the contrary, we suspect, first, that it will be used to pursue a blinkered objective of initially reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, and secondly, that if the revenue from the levy reaches the scale, that I have asked the Minister to indicate to us, it could be a very selective and potentially successful bribe to the electorate in 1983–84. That is why we shall scrutinise the forthcoming Bill with those realistic suspicions in mind.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a Ways and Means resolution. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and, indeed, the whole House have been under somewhat of the same disability as we should encounter in dealing with the Budget resolutions in the absence of a Budget speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the House would find itself doing in those circumstances, we are, as it were, attempting to understand the Budget resolutions on the Green Paper and to make out as best we can what are the arguments for them, what might be the financial parameters involved,

  259
  and so on. The hon. Gentleman has done his best, and I think he has deserved well of the House by giving it some fragment of a Budget debate worthy of the Ways and Means resolution laid before us.
  I have to say, however, that it was a singular piece of tactlessness on the part of those inscrutable beings who arrange Government business on the Order Paper to place this item immediately after two Northern Ireland orders. We have been reminded by the hon. Member of the immense yield that is expected from the surplus profits of the natural gas industry in Great Britain. Such was the wisdom of the managers of Government business that they thrust this under the nostrils of the representatives of the one part of the United Kingdom—the one-fortieth of the United Kingdom—that is denied altogether the benefits of North Sea gas.
  Mr. Tim Eggar: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that 50 per cent. of domestic gas consumers in Scotland, Wales and England are not able to get North Sea gas.
  Mr. Powell: Yes, but I am also aware that they get the same tariff as if they were getting North Sea gas.
  It would be impossible for me, with the views that I have expressed year in, year out about the unwisdom of so large an uncovered PSBR, to refuse my general assent to the Government's desire to obtain revenues to close the wider ever yawning gulf of the PSBR. But I feel that without any diminution of my probity in this matter, I can nevertheless with justification say to the House "Look on this picture and on that". The one picture is that of a Government who find themselves with a marvellously productive milch cow. A possible figure was £750 million. No doubt we shall have more precise figures from the reluctant Minister when he replies. However, £750 million was mentioned by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil as the possible yield, in the next 12 months, of the sort of levy that might be contemplated. That is the one picture.
  On the other picture, there is a Province that labours under the disadvantage, in all its industrial and employment problems, of much higher energy costs than prevail in the rest of the Kingdom. It is a Province that is separated from participation in the energy resources of the rest of the Kingdom by a very large question mark—namely, whether the Government's calculations, on which they base their contention that it is uneconomic to link Northern Ireland to the gas and electricity grids of Great Britain, are well-founded.
  Those are projections that have been modified, modified again, and disputed not only by impartial external surveyors of the scene but by the Economic Council for Northern Ireland. It would be impossible for Northern Ireland Members, faced with this Ways and Means resolution, not to draw the Government's attention to the fact that with a barely visible diminution of what they will secure by this levy they could link Northern Ireland to the energy economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no other single measure that would bring more assistance to the industry and employment of that Province.
  I do not think that this is the occasion of choice, as the doctors say, for a wide-ranging debate upon the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland or upon the economics of a pipeline. I do not intend to pursue it much further,
  260
  except to say that, as so often with many apparently economic issues, when we lift the economic fig leaf we find politics below. Of course, it is a political issue.
  We understand that the Government are perfectly prepared to enter into practical discussions with the Government of the Republic as to the piping of gas from Kinsale, in the South of Ireland, to supply Ulster; apparently, having once put down their foot, they are not prepared to consider or reconsider the link across the 12-mile North Channel that separates Ulster from the mainland of Great Britain.
  This is a political as well as an economic issue. It is a question whether that part of the United Kingdom is to be bound in with the energy economy of a separate State or is to be part of the energy economy of the United Kingdom. Having raised this issue in the context of a Ways and Means resolution, it would not have been right if I had not reminded the House that the issue was both political and economic.
  That fact is well understood by the people of Northern Ireland. They will become all the more bitter if, when they see the yields expected from this levy, they also realise that none of that wealth and none of those resources are to be placed into the trembling balance of a decision whether Northern Ireland should enjoy what every other part of the United Kingdom enjoys from a resource that is not local, partial or provincial, but a resource of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  12 midnight
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is, of course, absolutely right. This is an unusual procedure. The House is at something of a disadvantage, because we are debating a Ways and Means resolution that relates to a Bill that will not be published until tomorrow. It is an unusual procedure, because the Bill was founded upon a Ways and Means resolution.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation. The House will recall the announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 8 May to the effect that the Government had decided in principle to impose a levy on the British Gas Corporation in respect of gas purchased from the United Kingdom continental shelf and sold to the corporation under contracts not subject to petroleum revenue tax. The Gas Levy Bill will put that intention into effect. Obviously, there will be a full debate on the precise provisions of the Bill and of the intended levy on Second Reading.
  The aim of the levy is to recover part of the gain accruing to British Gas as a result of the rising value of the gas that it purchases under these old, low-priced supply contracts. Those contracts are exempt from petroleum revenue tax. It is appropriate for the levy to be restricted to petroleum revenue tax and to exempt gas. The rates of levy to be specified in the Bill have been set in the context of the existing policy of economic pricing for gas. The levy in itself will, therefore, have no effect on domestic or industrial prices.
  The British Gas Corporation's existing financial target will be adjusted to take account of the levy. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the revenue that would be raised by the levy and the Bill. I shall not go into all the details, as they will be fully discussed on Second Reading. However, on the basis of the most recent financial forecasts put forward by the

  261
  corporation, the levy would raise £130 million in 1980–81. In 1981–82 it would raise £420 million, and in 1982–83 it would raise £750 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's addition was absolutely correct.
  The effect of the levy is to transfer the gain from North Sea gas from the corporation to the Exchequer, to the benefit of the country generally. According to the procedures of the House, it is necessary for the Bill to be brought in by way of a Ways and Means resolution. As I said, there will be a full debate on the principles of the Bill on Second Reading. I cannot reply to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I noted what he said, and particularly that he disputed that it was not economic to supply gas to Northern Ireland. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister said that there would be no effect on the pricing policy of the Gas Corporation. Is he distinguishing between actual pricing and policy? Will the product of the levy be a charge on the supply of gas? Otherwise, how will the money arise?
  Mr. Lamont: The levy will be a levy on the costs of the gas corporation. It will not affect the pricing policy of the corporation. That has already been determined and worked out on the basis of the market price of gas and the long-run marginal cost. The pricing policy of the corporation has already been worked out. The financial target is being adjusted to a post-levy basis. It does not alter the policies being implemented by the corporation. It makes sure that the surplus funds from the corporation are transferred to the Exchequer permanently for the use of the community as a whole.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for the levying from the British Gas Corporation of a levy in respect of certain gas supplied to them and for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received in respect of the levy or of interest on it.
  GAS LEVY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions)
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to impose a levy on the British Gas Corporation in respect of certain gas supplied to them it is expedient to authorise—

  (1)the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under the provisions of the Act relating to the repayment of levy to the Corporation and the payment to the Corporation of interest on sums repaid;

  (2)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the Secretary of State which are attributable to the Act.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Question agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Secretary Howell, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. John Moore.

  GAS LEVY
  Bill to impose on the British Gas Corporation a levy in respect of certain gas presented accordingly: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time this day and to be printed. [Bill 59].

  LIAISON COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the Order of 31 January 1980 relating to the nomination of the Liaison Committee be amended by leaving out Mr. Donald Dewar and insering Mr. Robert Hughes.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Tankers (Hazardous Cargoes)
  12.7 am
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).
  Sir Bernard Braine: Last summer saw the resumption of an unusual public inquiry. This had opened five years previously with the task of deciding whether planning permission for an oil refinery on Canvey Island should be revoked. The issue was whether it was right to add yet another safety hazard to the massive concentration of gas, chemical and oil processing and storage on the island and in neighbouring Thurrock uncomfortably close to a large residential population. At the resumed inquiry, four independent scientific experts gave evidence that the level of risk faced by my constituents is too high and should be reduced. We are now awaiting the inspector's report and recommendations.
  The reason for this long-drawn out process is that, while in 1975 the inspector conducting the first stage of the public inquiry came to the firm conclusion that the proposed refinery should not be built, he recommended that the newly established Health and Safety Executive should first look at the totality of risk to which my constituents were exposed. The Government of the day agreed.
  Accordingly, the HSE carried out an investigation and published its findings in June 1978. In the event, the Canvey report, as I shall call it, confirmed our worst fears. It identified an appalling array of risks to health and safety, and, indeed, to life itself, which no community ought to be asked to accept. Unfortunately, the conclusions it reached did not match up to the gravity of the situation it had uncovered.
  One of the most glaring weaknesses of the report was its failure to deal adequately with the special dangers posed by tankers carrying hazardous cargoes being involved in collisions and fires while berthed at jetties in Canvey and Thurrock. There had been no consultation with the professional pilots who understood the problem and no proper assessment of the long history of accidents involving such vessels, any one of which might have triggered off a disaster involving the land-based installations.
  Within a few months of the report's publication, as if to chide us for these omissions, the French oil tanker "Betelgeuse", berthed at the Gulf terminal on Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay, blew up with the loss of all 43 of its crew and eight other persons on the terminal jetty.
  That terrible accident is relevant to our situation because similar vessels come into the Thames and discharge at jetties which are much closer to land-based hazardous installations. Moreover, while at Whiddy Island only 61 families have their homes, there are 34,000 people living on Canvey all the year round and well over 40,000 in the summer months. Local safety officers and the fire brigade are agreed that if such an explosion had taken place at Canvey Island it could have led to a cataclysmic fire extending landwards and causing heavy casualties.
  If the gravity of Canvey's situation is to be understood one point needs to be grasped by my hon. Friend from the outset—the island faces not one but a multiplicity of risks, any one of which could trigger off a train of disaster. Indeed, the greatest hazard of all is not an oil refinery or chemical storage but the British Gas methane terminal
  264
  where a tanker arrives every week carrying 12,000 tonnes of liquefied natural gas, the energy equivalent, I am told on good authority, of six Nagasaki-type atom bombs.
  Huge quantities of liquefied gas are stored at the terminal close to the residential area in what has long been obsolescent below-ground storage which, I am glad to say, British Gas is planning to decommission, and in large above-ground tanks where neglect of safety was the subject of three enforcement notices served by the HSE last year.
  For full measure I should perhaps mention that I elicited from my hon. Friend's Department in 1979 that there are no facilities on the Thames estuary for decanting the lethal cargo of a liquefied natural gas tanker should it become involved in a serious accident, such as fire or explosion aboard or a collision, save by bringing it into the Canvey terminal and carrying out the operation close to a large residential population. To be fair, although the HSE gave no attention to this problem in the Canvey report, I am certain that, in the light of present knowledge, the regional director would not permit this to happen today and the stricken tanker would have to be towed out to sea, if that were feasible. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would confirm this.
  What is more, although there has been a slight decline in the number of tankers arriving in the Thames over the past decade the proportion of fire and collisions has not fallen. The fact is that over the years we have had experience of many incidents which could have had serious repercussions for Canvey. I have given the House full details on other occasions and I refer my hon. Friend in particular to what I said on the subject during the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act in 1978 and 1979.
  We should not be surprised. In recent years there has been a general deterioration in safety standards at sea. Last year, for example, Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation experts investigated 1,000 incidents involving oil tankers and classified 200 of these as serious. The number of fires and explosions was the highest since 1972 and pollution incidents were the highest on record, 500 of these occurring in our own coastal waters.
  Last October it was revealed that the HSE had been conducting a spot check of ships carrying hazardous cargoes into our ports. It found that one out of every three vessels had safety faults and half of these were potentially serious enough to cause a disatrous explosion. Unbelievably, the HSE inspectors found that even in the case of tankers fitted with safety systems either these were faulty in themselves or the crew did not know how to operate them. The faults were found not only on flag of convenience ships, but on British and Common Market ships too.
  Let me give examples of what was found on three tankers carrying the most hazardous of all cargoes—liquefied gas. I quote from an account given by a senior HSE inspector at a conference on tanker safety held last October:
  "A liquefied gas tanker was visited; the Master was ashore and the Chief Officer was aboard engaged in cargo operations. This man's experience in tankers was limited to 3 months. He had been on the LPG ship for only 3 weeks. The ship's gas monitoring system was found to be switched off, the Chief Officer did not quite know how to operate the equipment nor did he know whether it was set for monitoring toxic of flammable ranges.

  265
  On another gas tanker it was found that the gas monitoring device was set for sampling the wrong gas; there was no record of any tests having been carried out, no one on board knew how to carry out such tests nor was there any span (testing) gas on board.
  On yet another gas tanker, when the Chief Officer was required to switch on his monitoring system, it alarmed in 2 spaces (or compartments). The inspector was informed that these were spurious alarms and for that reason the equipment had been switched off. No one on board was capable of remedying the defect or carrying out running repairs."
  Following that I put down a parliamentary question and elicited the alarming fact that since January 1979—when the "Betelgeuse" blew up in Bantry Bay—the Health and Saftey Executive had served 19 enforcement notices and three prohibition notices on vessels bringing hazardous cargoes into the Thames alone. Since the bulk of tanker explosions and fires occur while such vessels are in port areas, the significance of that revelation to our situation at Canvey will be readily grasped.
  Against that background consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, three incidents that have happened off Canvey in recent weeks. In the early hours of 27 November a fire broke out on the tanker "Texaco Oslo" while moored at the Texaco company's oil storage depot on the island. That, incidentally, was the installation where the IRA planted a bomb two years ago. Fortunately, the fire was brought under control by the Essex fire brigade, but not before a young Norwegian woman radio-operator had lost her life. At the inquest it was revealed that the tanker's own fire alarm was not connected to the land-based alarm system and was not even audible to the jetty supervisor. The fire brigade was alerted by a worker on the jetty who smelt smoke. As a consequence there was a 20-minute delay between the fire being discovered aboard and the fire brigade being called.
  As I have already said in a letter to the chairman of the PLA:
  "whether the woman's life could have been saved had the Brigade got to the ship twenty minutes earlier is not for me to say, but the absence of any effective interconnection was disgraceful and it begs the question as to what surveillance the PLA exercises in these matters with reference to vessels with hazardous cargoes discharging at Canvey or, for that matter, anywhere else in the river".
  Yet, less than two months later, in the early hours of 18 January, at the same jetty, a second fire broke out on the tanker "Texaco Norge" while discharging its cargo of 13,000 tonnes of petrol, 5,000 tonnes of gas oil and 1,500 tonnes of kerosene. Ironically that happened on the second anniversary of the IRA bomb incident at the same installation.
  On that occasion it took the Essex fire brigade only six minutes from receiving the alert to reach the scene—a highly commendable performance. However, here again there was a delay of 23 minutes between the fire being discovered on the vessel and the fire brigade receiving the first call. Bear in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the tanker was carrying 13,000 tonnes of petrol. The fire was quickly put out, but it could have been a very different story.
  I have consulted the chief fire officer and the regional office of the HSE and they are deeply perturbed about incidents of this kind. Well might they be, for it was entirely fortuitous that the fires did not spread and had they spread there could have been major disasters.
  Exactly a week later, in the early hours of 25 January, the 283,000 tons deadweight oil tanker "World
  266
  Brasiliana", partially laden, collided with the Mobil Oil Refinery's No. 4 jetty at Coryton, destroyed the control tower and severed a fuel oil line.
  No fire was caused, but it was as though Providence was warning us again, for that was the very jetty at which more than 10 years previously a Spanish passenger liner, "Monte Ulia", travelling at speed, had veered off course and crashed, severing oil pipelines and releasing hundreds of tons of blazing oil into the river which then set fire to two barges which drifted towards a tanker discharging benzine at Canvey. We were saved from disaster only by the turn of the tide.
  Were any lessons ever learned from that frightening experience? We cannot be sure. When I asked my hon. Friend's predecessor for sight of the report on the "Monte Ulia" incident and the recommendations made, I was told that this was a matter for the Department of Transport. But that Department replied that it had no responsibility for such inquiries: it was a matter for the Department of Trade. Then my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport added this:
  "Neither the Department of Trade nor ourselves have powers to direct the PLA to make copies of their own reports available to the public. The PLA's report is a confidential, internal document, which they do not wish to release. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful."
  When I put this to the chairman of the PLA he replied in a letter which I have only just received today that it was the Department of Trade that conducted the inquiry. He tells me that
  "the recommendations were not released publicly, nor did the PLA receive details of them … There could therefore be no question that the PLA would not release the recommendations—it did not have them."
  I am not suggesting that the PLA did not carry out safety improvements at oil terminals following this incident—if not it would have been gravely wanting in responsibility—but I am saying that the muddle and confusion over this matter, the fobbing-off of inquiries and the fact that the local authorities and the public have thus been prevented from knowing what lessons were learned and how far recommendations for improvement have been implemented is disgraceful. Who is telling the truth over this sorry episode? I am determined to find out. What were the recommendations and how many have been carried out?
  These questions are relevant because of what has happened since. The Bantry Bay disaster was investigated by a court of inquiry presided over by a distinguished Irish judge assisted by assessors of great experience who, incidentally, are very familiar with our Canvey situation. The ensuing report made a series of valuable recommendations in respect of safety. How many of these are directly relevant to conditions in British ports? How many have been implemented?
  The HSE, to its credit, has taken one of the main lessons to heart and has carried out spot checks which have revealed the scale of neglect.
  I have no doubt that the PLA and my hon. Friend's Department also had their eyes opened by the recommendations of the Bantry Bay report and the shocking revelations of neglect of safety revealed by the HSE spot checks on tankers. But what are they doing about it?
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us. In particular, I would be glad if he would answer the following questions. First, what specific steps have his

  267
  Department and the PLA taken to deal with the neglect of elementary safety precautions in our ports? I understand that there is a joint working party on port safety. What are its terms of reference? Who belongs to it? What is it doing? Am I correct in saying that the fire service is not represented on it? If so, why not? One would have thought this absolutely essential.
  Secondly, are the terms of reference of this joint working party such that it can report without fear or favour on what needs to be done, not only to ensure that the risks to the crews of tankers carrying hazardous cargoes are sharply reduced, but also the risks to the workers ashore in high hazard installations adjacent to jetties and to the general public living close by?
  Thirdly, what is being done specifically to ensure that the fire alarms aboard tankers discharging hazardous cargoes are clearly audible and are linked directly with the land-based alarm system? Can this be enforced on foreign vessels?
  Fourthly, what is being done to require stand-by tugs at oil berths to be fitted with fire monitors capable of reaching the decks of large tankers, and other high freeboard vessels?
  Fifthly, what is being done to ensure that jetties are adequate—I am advised the Texaco jetty at Canvey is not—to facilitate easy access for fire appliances and to provide a proper escape route? I am talking of circumstances in which fire officers, who place their lives on the line, must move along inadequate jetties to reach vessels where carelessness has led to the outbreak of fire.
  Finally, will the Minister give me an undertaking that a clear message is passed to all the Government Departments involved—Employment and Environment in particular—that until the present level of risk from storing and transhipping oil, chemicals and liquefied gases at Canvey Island is reduced, and is seen to be reduced, no additional hazard, however small, will be tolerated on the island?
  12.24 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I have long admired the diligence with which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) works on behalf of his constituents, and I much appreciate his vigilance and energy in pursuing the matters that he has raised tonight in the interests of safety and of those living on Canvey Island. They are of considerable importance.
  The incidents to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention and the real issues that he raises are concerned with the main fabric of marine safety. I shall seek to answer his questions in that connection as they come within my Department's responsibilities. I must make one immediate point, and I know that my hon. Friend will understand it. A number of the important matters that he raised are not within my Department's responsibilities but concern the Port of London Authority, for which the Department of Transport has a certain responsibility. The PLA is, as he knows, responsible for the safety of traffic in the Thames and navigational control. The Health and Safety Executive also has responsibilities for some of the matters raised, for which the Department of Employment eventually has responsibility. For other matters there is a Home Office responsibility. I undertake to ensure that all
  268
  such matters will be brought to the attention of those responsible. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also understand that within the limitations of time tonight I may not be able to deal with all the points that he has raised. If there are any outstanding, my noble Friend, who has responsibility in the Department for shipping matters, will write to him.
  It must be recognised that there will always be an element of danger inherent in taking ships to sea and in the activities associated with their operation, such as loading and unloading in ports. It would be quite unrealistic to suggest that we or any safety authority had the answers to all the questions. The view of my Department is that there will never be room for complacency in safety matters. My hon. Friend has asked what measures are being taken to maintain and improve safety standards in our ports so that the risks may be reduced. I shall try to deal with the particularly important questions of training, ship safety and enforcement.
  A great deal is being done in those areas. There are already comprehensive safety provisions, which are being improved and extended. There is general recognition of the need to concentrate accident prevention on the human element and to provide proper training, high standards of qualifications, examinations, and certificates for officers and crew. My hon. Friend has expressed concern about laxity in observing fundamental safety precautions. As he said, bad habits and slackness in that connection can have disastrous consequences, and I endorse fully his remarks in that sense.
  New certification requirements for deck and engineer officers serving on United Kingdom tankers will come into operation on 1 September 1981. As from that date, the master, deck officers and engineers on tankers and ships carrying liquid chemicals and liquefied gas cargoes and masters, chief engineers, chief officers and any other designated cargo officer will each need to have obtained a dangerous cargo endorsement to his certificate witnessing his having undergone special training and/or having had previous experience in a responsible capacity on ships carrying petroleum, liquid chemicals or liquefied gases, as the case may be. Generally speaking, deck and engineer officers employed on United Kingdom registered tankers and ships bringing hazardous liquefied cargoes to this country are properly certificated and trained personnel. It is expected that those requirements will enter into force late in 1982 or in 1983 for foreign flag ships in British ports.
  With regard to the safety of ships themselves, I wish to mention the following: first, extensive rules for the transporting of hazardous cargoes are in force, and also special design, survey and certification procedures for chemical and gas tankers, the implementation of which is well advanced. All United Kingdom registered chemical tankers and half of the gas carrying ships have already been issued with certificates of fitness.
  Secondly, new inert gas safety requirements for oil tankers are being implemented from 1 June this year for both United Kingdom and foreign tankers. Thirdly—and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know this—comprehensive mandatory annual surveys for all ships, including tankers, United Kingdom and foreign, commence of 1 May. There will also be a special intermediate survey for older tankers. Fourthly, from 1 May all tankers will be subjected to a survey of their cargo

  269
  piping and pumping systems and electrical installations in dangerous zones, which would include the area that my hon. Friend has in mind.
  In that context I should mention the working party, to which my hon. Friend referred, on the conveyance and storage of dangerous substances in port areas. That is not primarily a question for my Department, as the membership is very wide ranging and advises the Health and Safety Executive. I can say, however, that the terms of reference do have the object of controlling all aspects of the movement and storage of dangerous goods in port areas, including the loading and unloading of ships.
  The report on the Bantry Bay disaster, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is also relevant. That report has been carefully studied by my Department. As regards the United Kingdom fleet, most of the recommendations are either already in force, or will be implemented shortly. Others are being considered at an international level in IMCO next month. These studies may show a need for further measures.
  Finally, I wish to deal with enforcement. It is one thing to produce all these rules and regulations, and another to enforce them and, so far as is practicable, ensure that they are observed responsibly and achieve the desired effect at all times. My hon. Friend will be aware of the outcome of the recent ministerial European conference on maritime safety in Paris about which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade, now Secretary of State for Defence, wrote to him on, I think 8 December last year. The conference which was attended by 13 maritime nations, was actively concerned to adopt positive measures to ensure that safety conventions were not only brought into force as early as possible but also were effectively policed.
  In that context the United Kingdom has already entered a positive commitment to increase inspections of foreign ships in our ports during this year. My Department's marine survey service carried out well over 2,000 ad hoc general inspections in 1980, of which more than half were on foreign ships. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that this also included two periods when efforts were directed specifically at tankers in our ports—some 200 ad hoc inspections of tankers were carried out at the Thames and Canvey Island terminals. There are very few marine authorities in the world that could lay claim to such an effort which, I must point out, is over and above the fundamental regular statutory survey programme which is itself being reinforced during this year with the introduction of comprehensive mandatory annual surveys.
  I wish to say a little more about my Department's marine safety service. It is no exaggeration to say that the service sets itself a standard which has rightly won the
  270
  respect of all those concerned with the safety of ships—not only in this country but also in the international maritime community. It cannot be coincidental that the United Kingdom's maritime standing and safety record is second to none, and in this context a very great deal is owed to the marine survey service. It has to be recognised, however, that there will never be unlimited resources available for tasks of this kind.
  One further precaution affecting tanker safety—again, I think this will be of great interest to my hon. Friend—concerns the agreement reached in the Community on the so-called "tanker check list" directive. Broadly speaking, this introduces a harmonised regime whereby all but the smallest oil, gas and chemical tankers report in to Community ports before arrival, have available a check list giving details of various international safety certificates, and report deficiencies and incidents which
  "may decrease the normal safe manoeuvrability of the vessel, affect the safety and easy flow of traffic or constitute a hazard to the marine environment and adjacent areas".
  We hope to lay the necessary implementing regulations in the near future.
  My hon. Friend will know that vessels when in port are also liable to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive. Safety in ports is, of course, also a matter for the port authority, and it would be remiss of me if I omitted some reference to the excellent work of the Port of London Authority in this respect. Having direct responsibility for controlling navigation within the considerable area of the river is, of course, a major task for the PLA in its own right. The authority is absolutely committed to maintaining the highest standards of safety and navigational discipline and has in fact achieved remarkable success.
  There are substantially in excess of 30,000 shipping movements per year in the Thames and the vast number arrive, load or unload and depart safely and without incident or endangering safety in any way.
  I assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade takes very seriously the points which he has raised. I repeat to my hon. Friend the undertaking which I gave to ensure that the matters raised by him tonight which relate to the responsibilities of other Departments, namely, the Department of Employment, the Department of Transport and the Home Office—as well as those within the responsibility of the PLA—will be brought immediately to their attention.
  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 twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

Scotland
  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  Civil Servants (Travel Expenses)
  Civil Servants (Travel Expenses)
Home Department
  Mr. Charles Richardson
  Mr. Charles Richardson
  Nationality
  Nationality
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Custodial Remands
  Custodial Remands
  Mr. Trevor Rhone (False Imprisonment)
  Mr. Trevor Rhone (False Imprisonment)
Civil Service
  Pensions
  Pensions
Energy
  Coal Reserves
  Coal Reserves
  Radioactive Material
  Radioactive Material
  Energy Conservation (Heat Pumps)
  Energy Conservation (Heat Pumps)
  Offshore Oil Platforms
  Offshore Oil Platforms
  Atomic Energy Authority Constables
  Atomic Energy Authority Constables
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Chile
  Chile
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Warsaw
  Warsaw
  Bradford
  Bradford
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Nationalised Industries (Prices)
  Nationalised Industries (Prices)
  Ministers
  Ministers
National Finance
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Average Male Earnings
  Average Male Earnings
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Arts and Heritage (Pamphlets)
  Arts and Heritage (Pamphlets)
  Treasury Minutes
  Treasury Minutes
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Value Added Tax (Small Firms)
  Value Added Tax (Small Firms)
Social Services
  Antenatal Care
  Antenatal Care
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Fostering
  Fostering
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Hastings and Eastbourne Health Districts
  Hastings and Eastbourne Health Districts
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Medical Consultant Posts
  Medical Consultant Posts
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Oxfordshire (Locum Doctors)
  Oxfordshire (Locum Doctors)
  New Towns (Hospital Services)
  New Towns (Hospital Services)
  Mexborough Montagu Hospital
  Mexborough Montagu Hospital
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Income During Initial Sickness
  Income During Initial Sickness
  Children (Psychiatric Care)
  Children (Psychiatric Care)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Disabled Persons (Access)
  Disabled Persons (Access)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Thames Regional Hospital Health Authorities (District Boundaries)
  Thames Regional Hospital Health Authorities (District Boundaries)
  National Health Service (Abuse)
  National Health Service (Abuse)
  National Health Service (Managerial and Trade Union Responsibilities)
  National Health Service (Managerial and Trade Union Responsibilities)
  Fraud (Investigating Officers)
  Fraud (Investigating Officers)
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Social Services (Volunteers)
  Social Services (Volunteers)
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Rights of the Child (Charter)
  Rights of the Child (Charter)
  Special Hospitals (Transfers)
  Special Hospitals (Transfers)
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Small Hospitals (Change of Use)
  Small Hospitals (Change of Use)
  Examination Fees
  Examination Fees
  Automatic Response Cradles
  Automatic Response Cradles
  St. Mary's Hospital
  St. Mary's Hospital
  State Registered Nurses
  State Registered Nurses
  Drugs (Safety Testing)
  Drugs (Safety Testing)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
Wales
  Work Experience Programme
  Work Experience Programme
  Medical Consultant Vacancies
  Medical Consultant Vacancies
  Homeless Persons (Statistics)
  Homeless Persons (Statistics)
  Council Houses (Construction and Sale Statistics)
  Council Houses (Construction and Sale Statistics)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Unemployment (Port Talbot)
  Unemployment (Port Talbot)
Industry
  Trainees (Employment)
  Trainees (Employment)
  Senior Departmental Staff
  Senior Departmental Staff
  Regional Development Grant (Howden Glucose Company Limited)
  Regional Development Grant (Howden Glucose Company Limited)
  Keighley
  Keighley
  Regional Development Grants
  Regional Development Grants
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  SGS/ATES Falkirk
  SGS/ATES Falkirk
  Textile Machinery Exports
  Textile Machinery Exports
Transport
  Railway Staff (Assaults)
  Railway Staff (Assaults)
  Heavy Lorries (Armitage Report)
  Heavy Lorries (Armitage Report)
  A2 (Motorway Status)
  A2 (Motorway Status)
  M62 (Atomic Waste Transportation)
  M62 (Atomic Waste Transportation)
  Garages (Liquor Licences)
  Garages (Liquor Licences)
Environment
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Housing Services Advisory Group
  Housing Services Advisory Group
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Authorities (Development Control)
  Local Authorities (Development Control)
  Departmental Staff (Newcastle)
  Departmental Staff (Newcastle)
  Defence Estate
  Defence Estate
  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Marine Nature Reserves
  Marine Nature Reserves
  Development Commission and Council of Small Industries in Rural Areas
  Development Commission and Council of Small Industries in Rural Areas
  Roman Settlement (North Wales)
  Roman Settlement (North Wales)
  Local Government, Planning and Land Act
  Local Government, Planning and Land Act
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Hong Kong Citizens (Passports)
  Hong Kong Citizens (Passports)
Education and Science
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Mathematics and Physical Science Graduates
  Mathematics and Physical Science Graduates
Defence
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Hawk Aeroplane
  Hawk Aeroplane
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Challenger Tanks
  Challenger Tanks
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Tinned Meat
  Tinned Meat
  Sheep Dipping
  Sheep Dipping
  Alfa Toxin Disease
  Alfa Toxin Disease
Northern Ireland
  Fat Cattle
  Fat Cattle
  Murders
  Murders

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury
The Lord Harlech The Lord Harlech— Took the Oath.

School Meals Provision
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will provide information regarding school meals provision since April 1980 when controlled pricing ended.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, in October 1980, about 4 million pupils at maintained schools in Great Britain were taking a school meal, or just under half of the pupils attending school on the days of the census. About 900,000 pupils received the meal free. Since April 1980, the charge for the meal has been a matter for each education authority to decide and in October charges were in the range 35p to 60p. The average of authorities' charges was about 43p. A detailed statement of the returns from local education authorities in England relating to October 1980 has been placed in the Library.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that reply. One has to feel a little worried that the education service, of which school meals are part, is suffering the real brunt of the education cuts being made by the Government. I am particularly interested in whether the Minister could give us any information as to how she is protecting the interests of those children who are entitled to meals without payment, and that the nutritional standards of those meals are beneficial to the children receiving them?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, it was the intention of the Government that the bulk of the economies to be made in the education budget should come on the not strictly educational parts of that budget, but she will be pleased to know that two-thirds of the authorities in England have adopted criteria of entitlement to free school meals more generous than the statutory minimum; the statutory minimum being those families on supplementary benefit and family income supplement.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many children are receiving school meals now? While she said that 4 million were receiving school meals, I did not hear her say what the figure was today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the figure of 4 million is the latest available figure we have, taken last October, 1980.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the department is taking any interest in the quality of the meals, and whether it is asking for information about that from the local education authorities?—because one reads possibly untrue accounts of the type of meal being offered by some LEAs?
Baroness Young: My Lords, under the Education Act 1980 it is for local education authorities to determine the type of meal provided and the charge that will be made for it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Minister say what action she takes with local authorities who might be envisaging the future complete disbanding of the school meal provision in their areas? How then will the children who should be entitled to free meals be dealt with?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Act is quite clear. Those children who are from families on supplementary benefit or family income supplement are entitled to a free school meal. The local education authority is under a duty to make arrangements for such a meal. There can be no question of their avoiding that duty. Whether or not an authority decides, as indeed Dorset has decided, to give up school meals for primary schools, is a matter for them. They must make arrangements for those for whom they must provide a meal. They must also provide facilities for the children to eat sandwiches at school.

Aldermaston: Nuclear Processing Facilities
2.40 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 whether new plant is to be built at the Atomic Weapons Research station at Aldermaston to process plutonium for nuclear weapons; when it will be completed; what it will cost; and whether part of its purpose is to serve warheads for the Trident nuclear missile.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, a new building will be constructed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston to replace existing facilities for processing nuclear materials. It is hoped that it will be completed in the late 1980s. Contracts have not yet been let and it has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose detailed costs related to the defence nuclear programme. The new facility is part of the continuing programme of replacement and improvement of the existing but ageing capital facilities at Aldermaston, needed to maintain

1035
the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent, including Trident.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not strange that Parliament should not have been informed of this expansion of defence equipment, and that we should learn about it only by the notification to the Berks. County Council and two letters to Members of Parliament? May I ask, further, whether it is not unwise to make this commitment of millions of pounds for the provision of Trident when it is very uncertain, indeed improbable, whether the Government at the time of installation will be in favour of it? Has the noble Viscount noticed that, in the last public opinion poll in November, 59 per cent. of our population were opposed to the Trident?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord as to exactly when the Government released this news. I ought to be able to and I shall write to the noble Lord to tell him. I think it happened before my day. In relation to the changing situation so far as public opinion is concerned, the public opinion polls have been studied and many different answers to hypothetical questions were given. Her Majesty's Government are clear that the British people, properly faced with the facts and not, if I may say so, with a degree of wishful thinking which is sometimes placed before them, will react to the absolute need to keep this country strong in every relevant respect.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, without wishing in any way to be controversial, may I ask if there is any doubt at all but that on "D1" of nuclear war, Aldermaston would disappear? In the light of that, is it really wise to expand Aldermaston instead of transferring its production to somewhere on the other side of the world where it would have a better chance of a slightly longer survival?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, even within the terms of his tacit assumptions, is correct; the production of the necessary material for nuclear weapons would take place before a nuclear war. But the whole purpose of our possession of nuclear weapons, within an alliance and particularly with the United States, is to ensure that no war takes place and furthermore that we cannot be coerced to surrender because we do not have those facilities.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, while in no way questioning the need for Trident, may I ask the Minister to say what is the estimate of the life of this new plant and what will be the cost and method of de-commissioning at present-day prices and technology? Further, does he think it will be possible for men to work in the de-commissioning process and, if so, what will be done with the plant?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary is that we anticipate that these facilities, which is a new building within a compound where existing facilities con
1036
tinue, will still be in major operation well into the next century. The answer to the second detailed question is that quite obviously it is impossible to estimate in current-day prices what the cost of de-commissioning would be if indeed de-commissioning took place. The fact that de-commissioning can be a real problem has been well understood. The new plant is being designed in a way in which previous plants in this and other countries have not been designed—to make cleaning and de-commissioning much easier—and experience and research on the methods of cleaning and de-commissioning will continue to accumulate over the rest of this century.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from the Minister's earlier reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the strength of the opposition to this proposal?—in the Labour Party, not only Michael Foot but Denis Healey; in the Social Democrats, Bill Rodgers; the Liberal Party; and the Scottish and Welsh National Parties. Is it not unwise to be committing millions of pounds to a project which will be dismantled when they come to office?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think I can add to the answers I have already given. I believe the majority of experts who have a real knowledge both of defence strategies and the alternatives in these areas, are of a mind which fully supports the policy on which Her Majesty's Government are continuing. So far as future Governments are concerned, I believe we shall have satisfactory Governments who will put the security of the nation above all else.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, would it not be a crime, and a crime on the part of any Government, to leave this country and ourselves incapable of defending ourselves with adequate and competent weapons, whatever Government were in power?
Viscount Trenchard: We agree, my Lords.

El Salvador: Military Aid
2.48 p.m.
Lord Chitnis: 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 line with their belief in self-determination by the peoples of Afghanistan, Poland and elsewhere, they have made any representations to the United States Government against the renewal of military aid to the military-civilian junta in El Salvador.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords. The situation in El Salvador is not comparable to that in Afghanistan or Poland, where there is direct, or the threat of direct, intervention by Soviet troops. We would, of course, like the people of El Salvador to be able to determine their own future peacefully and democratically.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that the scale of military involvement in El Salvador is increasing and that, whatever the differences may be now, American military assistance is already being used by the Russians as a reason to legitimise their own imperialist adventures? Would he also agree that the military containment of the Opposition Front guerrillas is not the solution to El Salvador's problems but will merely prolong them? In so far as labels are put on the Opposition Front by both the Salvadorean and American Governments, may I ask him to recognise that virtually every Member of your Lordships' House would be considered by the civilian and military junta in El Salvador to be a dangerous Communist?
Lord Trefgarne: I cannot answer for the views of the junta in El Salvador, my Lords, but to pick one of the nuggets from the noble Lord's supplementary—to do with the opposition parties in that country and particularly the Salvadorean FDR, as they are called—while that organisation indeed includes respectable politicians, it also embraces groups dedicated to violence and kidnappings, and included among the victims are United Kingdom businessmen. The aim of those groups appears to be to precipitate a civil war as a means of ousting the present Government. Our policy is to recognise states, not Governments, and the question therefore of officially recognising opposition parties does not arise.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the archdiocese of San Salvador, 10,000 unarmed citizens, including priests and nuns, were killed last year and that our latest information is that the killing continues by the security forces and their paramilitary associates? Is he also aware that all the major Churches of the United States have protested at the renewal of military supplies to the perpetrators of these barbaric deeds? May I further ask him whether the noble Lord the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary might use his very considerable and attractive influence to acquaint his American counterpart, bearing in mind that he has been busy with the return of the hostages and the presidential election, with the feeling in many parts of many lands that renewed military aid will only exacerbate the conflict and encourage oppression?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate began his supplementary question by reference to the killings which he said had been perpetrated by the junta in power in that country. It is certainly the case that there has been a great deal of violence in that country, but it has not all come from the Government side. As for the United States action, they have said that they resumed military aid to El Salvador because there is foreign intervention in that country in support of the guerrilla forces opposed to the Government.
Lord Soper: My Lords, may I reinforce what the right reverend Prelate has just said, and ask the Minister whether it is true that the Churches in El Salvador, and notably Archbishop Romero, just before he was cruelly murdered, insisted to the American Government, so far as they were able to do, that what
1038
was required was not military aid but social aid? May I further ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the British Council of Churches has expressed itself in similar terms? Does he not agree that the practical step would now be to establish negotiations on the part of the USA with the so-called opposition, which is in fact the dominant group, in regard to food and aid, rather than to succour a so-called Government which is not in true authority on the basis of gunships?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is true that the position in El Salvador gives rise to very great concern, and it is of course also true that various Churches there have suffered cruelly in the violence which has taken place. The noble Lord referred to the death of Archbishop Romero. I in fact attended the memorial service to the Archbishop in London on behalf of my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and I am therefore well aware of the very real and justified feeling, and of the revulsion, which surrounded the tragic death of that Prelate. But on the general question of aid for that country, we have to decide our policies in that area according to the position as we find it, and I am happy that the present arrangements are appropriate in the present circumstances.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, serious as the question of El Salvador is, it is part of a much larger issue affecting the stability of Central America, including the Caribbeans? Can he assure us that when our Prime Minister meets the American President to discuss international affairs as well as monetary affairs a very high priority will be given to this area—a term which, in his last answer, he deliberately used? Both this country and the United States, hopefully with the co-operation of the Soviet Union, must do what they can to maintain and ensure stability in Central America and the Caribbeans.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot of course forecast in detail what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will discuss with the American President when she meets him, but I can assure the noble Lord that the affairs of the Central American region will be very much in the mind of my right honourable friend and, indeed, my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in their consultations with the American Government.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, in view of the situation in El Salvador, will Her Majesty's Government not at least consider putting the matter on the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Commission?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that it is already on the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, who are I think meeting in a few days' time.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to aid and the concern which the Government have about that, and since there are over 150,000 displaced people who are in refugee camps still subject to harassment from Government troops, 10,000 children who have been orphaned and 100,000 people who have become exiled in neighbouring

1039
states as a result, may we ask the Government to show their concern by not being happy (as the noble Lord put it) with the present aid that we are giving? Can they not show their concern by making some contribution, perhaps through the voluntary agencies which have already given aid? As one gathers small sums may be available in the budget of ODA which have to be spent before the end of the financial year, can we not show what we feel about the human side of this tragic situation by making some contribution?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I can answer the noble Baroness in two ways. First, on the question of the refugees, we understand—in fact, we know—that the International Committee of the Red Cross are mounting an appeal for the refugees from El Salvador. Details of that appeal reached the Government only yesterday, I think, and we are urgently considering what response we can make. But on the general question of development aid, I have to say that all the technical co-operation officers, who were the principal feature of our aid programme in that country, had perforce to be withdrawn when the embassy was closed in February of last year. Our present commitments are limited, first to the completion of the training of 11 Salvadoreans in the United Kingdom, and, secondly. to the financing of a second instalment of about £75,000 for tools and equipment for self-help housing. I am sorry to say that local conditions (which the noble Baroness will understand, I am sure) have caused considerable delay in the disbursement of the first instalment, and it is not therefore certain when we shall be able to disburse the second instalment.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from an earlier reply, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the United Nations Human Rights Commission is now in session in Geneva—it opened yesterday—and will the Government instruct their delegate to raise this question as a priority matter during that meeting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Nations Human Rights Commission is meeting, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, indicated, very soon—in fact, I see from my notes, on 2nd February, so it is now already in session. It will complete its meeting on 14th March; and I understand that it will then be for the Salvadorean Government to indicate whether they will accept a mission, or whatever is decided upon, from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and we shall have to see what to do in those circumstances.

Mr. Stanley Adams
2.58 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make strong representations to the European
1040
Economic Commission to ensure that justice is done to Stanley Adams, who suffered imprisonment, bankruptcy, the suicide of his wife and received only derisory compensation after he had drawn the Commission's attention to the illegal practices of a drug company.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr. Adams is a Maltese citizen, who was tried under Swiss law in respect of information he was alleged to have given to the European Community Commission. The British Government have no direct locus to intervene. But our permanent representation in Brussels have discussed the case informally with the Commission, with whom prime responsibility lies. We understand that the Commission are seized of the issues involved. Their attitude was fully described in the two declarations made by the Commission to the European Parliament on 23rd May and 18th September 1980, which are to be found in the Library of your Lordships' House. The Commission made an ex gratia payment of 50 million lira (about £25,000) to Mr. Adams on 29th May 1980.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Lord verify these facts? Is it quite clear that there was no question at all of Mr. Adams's employers, Roche, marketing any drug which had been insufficiently tested, or anything of that sort, the offences committed being purely commercial; that he was an executive of Roche, enjoying their confidence, and that, without consulting them, warning them or protesting to them, he went and sneaked to the European Commission; that the Swiss, who in my view are certainly a very highly civilised country, regard this kind of private treachery as criminal; that on a charge of this private criminal nature he was tried and sentenced; and that, so far as the European Commission are concerned, what they do to compensate their "grasses" is their business and not ours?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I think that his supplementary question was a mixture of conjecture and his own opinion. The fact is that almost everything that the noble Lord has mentioned was a reference to the Swiss legal system, for which I am not responsible.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend read the many press reports drawing attention to this individual's tragic circumstances; and would he say whether it is open to an individual to go to the European Commission of Human Rights to seek for such injustice to be put right? Would he say whether our strong representation at the ECC will do all it can to set this matter to rights; because an individual's suffering and an individual's freedom is of supreme importance when he has, in his opinion, drawn a malpractice to the attention of that Commission?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I understand it, the European Commission on Human Rights has its doors open to any citizen of Europe or any citizen of a signatory state to make representations to it—which is doubtless what Mr. Adams will seek to do. But it is no part of my job to comment on how that Commission should go about its work.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, did I understand the Minister in his original reply to say that because Mr. Adams was a Maltese subject, Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi to intervene? Is it not the case that, as a member of the European Community, we are at least as much interested as is any other country in seeing that justice is done; and the original Question draws attention to the fact that there may be a miscarriage of justice here? Would the Minister therefore say that, if there is any suggestion of a miscarriage of justice, our representatives should make known to the European Commission the very deep feeling in this country about the way this has been handled?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there were any miscarriage of justice—and I would not comment on that—it occured in Switzerland and not in Brussels.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is there not in any event a case for restraint in character assassination in this Chamber?
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Mr. Adam's public-spirited action in revealing price-fixing practices has effectively saved the National Health Service and the British taxpayer substantial sums of money? If this is the case, has not this country a moral duty to do all in its power to assist him?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am wary about taking on board the moral duties which the noble Lord suggests. The duty that I have at this moment is to answer for Her Majesty's Government—and that I have done.
Lord Waddon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that a most disturbing feature of this case was the leakage by the Commission of information given to it in confidence which has resulted in these troubles? What action are the Government taking to ensure that security is considerably tightened so that future information will not be blocked off on allegations of this kind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I can answer for the European Commission on the sort of point that the noble Lord puts to me; but, as I said in my original Answer, our permanent representatives in Brussels have discussed the matter informally with the Commission.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that a question-and-answer session is not the appropriate way in which to deal with matters of which this House is not fully apprised and of which the House has heard no evidence whatsoever?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinners will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill
1042
will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately one hour. The Third Reading of the Bill of Rights Bill and two Northern Ireland orders will be taken during this adjournment.
It may also be helpful if I announce that dinners will be available this Thursday, 5th February, during the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill; but it is not expected that the House will sit beyond ten o'clock on that day.

Public Passenger Vehicles Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to public passenger vehicles. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

National Film Finance Corporation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Acts 1949 to 1980 and to repeal, as spent, certain enactments relating to the National Film Finance Corporation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Film Levy Finance Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with some apologies because I am sitting judicially in the coming days, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Cinematograph Films Acts 1957 to 1980. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision for Scotland as to the rights of occupancy of spouses in a matrimonial home and of cohabiting couples in the house where they cohabit; to provide for the transfer of the tenancy of a matrimonial home between the spouses in certain circumstances during marriage and on granting decree of divorce or nullity of marriage, and for the transfer of the tenancy of a house occupied by a cohabiting couple between the partners in certain circumstances; to strengthen the law relating to matrimonial interdicts; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to companies and business names. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Matrimonial Homes and Property Bill [H.L.]
Lord Scarman: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, and to make further provision as to the rights of husbands and wives to possession or occupation of any matrimonial home or former matrimonial home, and as to orders for the sale of property under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Scarman.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That pursuant to the Motion agreed to by the House on Tuesday last there shall be a Select Committee to consider whether, in the light of the matters complained of in the petitions against the Order the area specified in the Order should be designated as an urban development area under Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Airedale

L. Ampthill

L. Cross of Chelsea (Chairman)

1044

L. Nugent of Guildford

L. Underhill

That the proceedings of the Committee shall be conducted as if it were a Committee on an opposed Private Bill;
That the order and the following petitions against it shall stand referred to the Committee.
Committee:—

1. Newham Chamber of Commerce.

2. Newham Voluntary Agencies Council.

3. Greater London Council.

4. Mrs. Anne King.

5. Bermondsey Forum;

North Southwark Community Development Group;

Mayflower Tenants' Association;

Southwark Docklands Campaign;

Surrey Docks Child Care Project.

6. Tower Hamlets Trades Council;

Southwark Trades Council

West Ham Trades Council;

7. Association of Wapping Organisations;

Stephen and Matilda Tenants Co-operative;

South Quay Tenants Association;

Limehouse Development Group.

8. Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets Borough Councils.

9. Association of Island Communities.

10. Proprietors of Hay's Wharf Limited;

London Bridge Properties Limited;

London Bridge Developments Limited;

St. Martins Property Investments Limited.

That there shall also stand referred to the Committee every petition deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments complaining of matters raised in a petition against the order and any petitioner whose petition stands referred under this paragraph may, not-withstanding the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), be heard upon such petition by themselves, their Counsel or agents, if the Committee think fit;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 10th February at 11.00 a.m. in the Moses Room.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this somewhat long Motion standing in my name, I think I should say a few words on its import. Last Tuesday, your Lordships agreed to the report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee on the London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980 and the Motion now before the House is to appoint the members of that Select Committee, and sets out the terms of reference to enable it to carry out the further inquiry into the order which was recommended by the Hybrid Instruments Committee. Your Lordships will note that the order and the list of petitions deposited against it are referred to the Select Committee and that its proceedings will be conducted as if it were a Select Committee on an opposed private Bill.
Lastly, may I say a few words about the last paragraph which gave me some difficulty last Tuesday in trying to explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, what it meant. I am afraid I was not as clear as I might have been and that I may have given the noble and learned Lord the wrong impression.
The purpose of the procedure provided for in this

1045
paragraph is to enable the Committee, if they see fit, to hear petitioners who complain of matters raised in any petition already deposited against the order. This procedure is most likely to apply where a petitioner against the order asks for an alteration in the boundary of the designated area and some other body objects to such alteration and should have an opportunity to be heard.
Perhaps a simple example is the clearest way of explaining it. The Greater London Council petition against the order (which is one of those to be considered by the Select Committee) seeks an alteration of the boundary of the development area to include certain land which is in the ownership of the British Gas Corporation. If your Lordships agree to it, this paragraph would give the Select Committee, if they so wish, the right to hear representations from the British Gas Corporation opposing the proposals of the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Motion be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for clarifying the obscure so admirably.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Judicial Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Rate of pension]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved the following Amendment:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to confer on a judge of the Court of Session an entitlement to a pension. Under Section 1 of the Judges' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1808 the award of a pension to a judge of the Court of Session is discretionary, whereas all holders of high judicial office in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have, in accordance with paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 to the Administration of Justice Act 1973, an unqualified entitlement to their pension. This is an anomalous situation. The amendment, which implements Recommendation 2 of the joint Law Commissions' report will have the effect of putting a Scottish judge on an equal footing in terms of pension with his colleagues elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships might feel that an amendment to a consolidation Bill is a trifle unusual, and indeed it is. But it is by no means unprecedented. An example which no doubt will spring to your Lordships' mind
1046
is that of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 when the party opposite of course were in power. An amendment was moved to that Bill to remove the discrepancy between the maximum penalties for taking spawn-carrying crabs and for taking spawn-carrying lobsters. I trust therefore that your Lordships will agree that this is a desirable change. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I view with alarm moving from seafish and shellfish about which we may hear a good deal in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill that follows. We covered a whole range of animal existence yesterday and it is interesting that we are now introduced to yet another field. To say that the purport of the amendment:
"Clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4)"
is apparent would be an exaggeration. But I take it that what the noble Earl is after is to see that there should be equality even among judges of the law; and if that is the purpose of his endeavour, I support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 10 [Exceptions to s.9]
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 11, leave out lines 23 and 24.
The noble Lord said: This is to some extent a probing amendment but raising a serious point which is also covered by Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. The purpose of my amendment is to try to ensure that bats that live in dwelling-houses will not be disturbed. We had a short and somewhat lighthearted discussion about this late last night. I said then briefly that the position of bats in this country was a great deal more serious and desperate than was generally realised.
As I said then—and I think that it is worth repeating—there are very few animals which are protected by the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, but two are bats. The greater horseshoe bat has been reduced to a very small number of colonies, many of which are extremely endangered for a number of reasons, particularly because the buildings which

1047
they use for breeding, where bats tend to colonise in large numbers and be concentrated, have one sort of problem or another. This has led voluntary wildlife organisations and the Nature Conservancy Council to take a number of steps which have proved extremely expensive: one example being to repair the roof of a kitchen of a school in a way that did not disturb the greater horseshoe bat colony which used that particular roof for breeding purposes.
The position of the mouse-eared bat, which was also protected under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act is a great deal more serious. In fact, I understand that there are probably no mouse-eared bats left alive in this country. It therefore probably has the dubious distinction of being the first species that we attempted to protect under the 1975 Act which has subsequently become extinct; that is depending on whether the large blue butterfly did become extinct last year. That underlines how serious the position is for bats as a whole.
This has been caused by a number of features. First, the general unpopularity and bad image of bats. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said last night that I should ask somebody who had had a bat caught in their hair what they thought of them. I have never yet actually met somebody who has had a bat caught up in their hair. I know it is a common belief that it happens, but I think myself it is an old wives' tale, unless the noble Earl has had personal experience of this. I certainly never have. In fact, bats have a very good and sensitive radar system and are very unlikely to get caught up in anything, and certainly not in a human being's head.
The second thing that has caused the problem is the number of buildings which receive annual remedial timber treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, referred to this last night. The number of bats which have died or have had their breeding habits interfered with has been very high indeed. For example, in 1953 the Dorset colony of greater horseshoe bats was virtually exterminated during remedial timber treatment. The problem is particularly bad if the treatment takes place at the wrong time of year because then it is possible to exterminate a whole bat colony, as they would all have got together for breeding.
The Bill takes a very useful step forward in providing in Clause 10 protection for animals; but the two lines I wish to delete make it lawful to do anything within a dwelling-house, even though it may damage an animal which we have taken particular steps to protect under the Bill. There are not many of them and I think it is important that we should find a way of excluding damaging effects on bats, even if something were done in a dwelling-house, from the scope of these two lines.
Having said that, I think my amendment would be a good deal less preferable than that of either the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, or the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Both are a great deal more specific in meeting the point I am after. I do not know whether it is convenient to discuss those two amendments with mine or whether your Lordships would wish to take them separately; but in any event I hope that the Government will be able to reassure us, if not on this
1048
amendment then on one of the others, that they will ensure that the Bill takes this point into account.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): I can understand the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, over the alteration of the amendment numbers, because I experienced some modest confusion myself. He said that the object of this amendment was to ensure that bats in dwelling-houses should not be disturbed. He said that we had had a conversation last night—indeed we had a debate on the subject—and he asked whether I had had a bat in my hair. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I have not had a bat in my hair but, having a less uncontrolled thatch on the top of my head than that of the noble Lord, no doubt the chances of a bat being caught in his hair would be greater than one being found in mine. All I would tell him is that there is a very real fear among some people, particularly ladies, about the possibility of having a bat in their hair; and when they are told by the noble Lord that bats have a sensitive radar system, I do not think they would find that particularly comforting. It may be perfectly true but—
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl has access to far more competent scientific advice than I have, and I hope that rather than encourage these totally unwarranted fears, he might listen to the scientific advice which I am sure would tell him that this does not happen and that, just like the noble Earl, people are believing something which is not true.
Earl Ferrers: I am not encouraging any such fears. I was merely reiterating the fears which had been expressed to me on occasion. However, to come to the point of this amendment, lines 23 and 24 of Clause 10 closely follow a similar provision in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Amendment) Bill which your Lordships considered in 1979. This exemption was accepted then and I would have thought that your Lordships would continue to regard it as reasonable to permit actions to be taken within one's house, without the necessity of obtaining a licence even against those protected species which may be using one's house for shelter or protection. Obviously one would hope that such actions would be taken only when necessary and after the most careful consideration on the part of the owner or occupier of the dwelling-house.
However, I am bound to tell the Committee that if your Lordships were to accept this amendment the effect would be that if one did have bats in one's attic it would be an offence to get rid of them. Notwithstanding the scientific advice and the rarity of the bats, I think this would be an unreasonable restriction to put on a householder, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Somers: It may be stretching the point a little bit far, but may I ask the noble Earl what is the legal definition of "dwelling-house"? Surely a stable is a dwelling-house for horses?
Earl Ferrers: In Clause 20, I think, there are a number of definitions. Whether "dwelling-house"

1049
is one of them I am not sure: I do not think it is. But a dwelling-house is a place in which one dwells: if the noble Lord wishes me to give a more legalistic definition, I am bound to say that I shall have to take advice about that.
Lord Melchett: I think it would be a mistake to delay the Committee too long over this amendment. As I say, there are two further amendments and I would hope that the Government might be able to accept one or other of them. I quite agree with the noble Earl that we would all hope that people would take action against a specially protected species only when it is necessary. It might be that when we look at this matter between now and Report stage it would be useful to see that sentiment which the noble Earl expressed reflected in the words of the Bill, so that people looking at this would know that that is what Parliament had intended. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("a dwelling house") and insert ("the occupied quarters of a dwelling house, which term shall not be taken to include the roof-space, cellar, cavity wall or vacuity in the fabric of a dwelling house that is not ordinarily used for living purposes.").
The noble Earl said: Speaking from this side of the Committee and with the support of the Government, I must say I was very deeply upset to hear the noble Earl on the Front Bench just now speaking of Government opinion and reflecting the advice of his scientific advisers. I cannot believe that advice was given by dispassionate scientific advisers and I cannot help but feel that it must have been coloured by impressions of what people might or might not be willing to accept.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, last night said at column 949 of the Official Report:
"… the Government's primary aim in this Bill is to make provisions which would enable the necessary steps to be taken to conserve those creatures for which conservation measures are required".
If I may refer your Lordships to Schedule 5, the first two bats whose names are given on the list are—
"Bats, Horseshoe (all species)
Bats, Typical (all species)."
This is not any addition to the list I have been trying to promote recently in your Lordships' Committee; this is a list of the animals which the Government have declared it is their primary aim to conserve. I refuse to joke about bats. Bats comprise one-third, approximately, of our native mammal fauna. That will give an idea of their comparative importance—when we discuss bats we are talking about one-third of the native mammals of our country. They were adapted to a primeval environment, largely forest, in this country, in which trees, hollow trees, fissures in bark and so on provided their roosting space. They have so far proved adaptable to the altered environment by their capacity to occupy alternative roosting and breeding sites such as those that are offered by the buildings which man has erected.
Of the bats which were protected by the 1975 Act,
1050
the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has already mentioned the greater horseshoe bat. This bat has been very carefully and intensively studied by those who are interested in the mammals of our country, including the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, which is, as it were, the Government's wildlife research arm. There are six known colonies of greater horseshoe bats in this country. All six live and breed in buildings. All of those buildings were, or are, dwelling-houses. In those buildings they occupy roof spaces, crevices in the roof and parts of the buildings which are not lived in by people. Three of the dwelling-houses are still in use. The remainder, for one reason or another—including, in one case, the fact that the whole building was dedicated to the use of bats—are no longer lived in by people as well as by bats.
The close relative of the greater horseshoe bat, the lesser horseshoe bat, which is a bat which will be protected under this Bill, exists in a limited area of this country. There is no breeding colony which does not occur in a dwelling-house. Almost all these dwelling-houses are occupied by people. In order to illustrate more clearly than the noble Earl on the Front Bench the attitude which people will take, I may say that these people who have colonies of lesser horseshoe bats in their houses are immensely concerned that these rare and threatened animals should survive.
Public attitudes can be changed. The public attitude to bats, as being something nasty that gets in their hair, is not one which need be perpetuated. It is one which, again, our Institute for Terrestial Ecology and our Nature Conservancy Council have taken steps to remedy. There is a good pamphlet available, called A Focus on Bats: A Guide to their Conservation and Control. I have not ascertained whether this is available in your Lordships' Library. But I will deposit this copy in your Lordships' Library and I hope that it will be read with care and attention by those who are not aware of the importance of this subject in general.
I also hope your Lordships will realise why we have to care for bats in houses, and will see that, if there is to be any sense in legislating that bats shall be protected, there must be comparable consideration of bat colonies that occur in houses. These bat colonies do not occur in those parts of the house in which people normally come and go. They occur in roof spaces. Bats are essentially secretive animals. They hide away in that part of the house which provides them with a suitable environment, and what they seek is shelter, shade, darkness and freedom from interference. In many cases, the bats are unknown to the human denizens of the house. In some cases they are known.
My amendment seeks to follow up the lead provided just now by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in, I admit, an amateur fashion, and a fashion which has not been inspired by any legal inquiry, to define that part of the house which is legitimately the province of the bats, because it is not required by human beings for their survival. We do not exterminate human beings by denying them the facility to occupy dwellings which are occupied by bats. We can exterminate bats and, in some cases, we could exterminate in six simple moves the entire remaining breeding colony of one of our protected native bat species, if we do not give them the protection that I seek in this amendment. I stress

1051
again that, if we are to pass legislation here which makes sense, we must put these two points together. I beg to move.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My amendment is very similar to the amendment which was so ably moved by my noble friend, except that whereas his amendment would let some other nice, little, furry, rare beasties into Schedule 6, mine is exclusively directed at bats. I, too, was worried last night about the attitude of your Lordships' House towards bats and the feeling that everybody hated them. But I should tell your Lordships that, with the advice of the Institute for Terrestial Ecology and one Bob Stebbings, who designed it for me, I put a bat box into the Christmas catalogue of the World Wildlife Fund and we sold thousands and thousands of those bat boxes. In other words, people did want bat boxes just as they want bird boxes.
Bats are harmless, slow-breeding and easily disturbed to the extent of destruction. A survey in 1978–79 showed that the number and size of colonies has declined by 38 per cent. With the destruction of the usual habitat, some bats have become almost wholly dependent on buildings—not necessarily homes—where they live and breed. But the householder with a colony of bats in his roof can hardly be expected to put up with them unless he likes the harmless little creatures, and this is the dilemma.
I have already spoken of the terrible effect of the lindane and dieldrin preparations which, as I read the Bill, are illegal for wood preservation if bats are present. But as the Bill is now framed, they will be illegal except in a dwelling-house. The other danger, which is similarly made illegal except in a dwelling-house, is in Clause 11 (2)(c), which forbids the use of gas or smoke. Gas or smoke are now used either to drive out the bats, or to kill them when the exist have been closed. We must try to protect the bats living in our homes.
But those bats which are unwelcome are still in the house. My amendment presents a practical solution that would save some, but not all, colonies and individuals and this is the best we can hope for. Under Clauses 9 and 10, it is illegal to destroy the habitat, unless it is in a dwelling-house. My amendment includes a dwelling-house, provided it is not in the living quarters. But we may still want to get rid of the bats and their habitat, without breaking the law.
As my noble friend pointed out a moment ago, if there were bats in one's house it would be an offence to get rid of them if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were agreed to. So my next amendment—and I am not speaking to it, but it must be seen in the perspective of my present amendment—provides that one may destroy the bats' habitat in one's home, if one has first obtained clearance from the Nature Conservancy Council. My Amendments Nos. 115, 128, 139 and 174 present a complete package for the reasonable protection of bats and for complying with their welcome appearance in Schedules 5 and 6.
I hope that my noble friend who is to reply to this series of amendments will be able to say after I have moved the last two, not that he will consider the
1052
various proposals that we have put forward, but that he will do something in this Bill, because it is possible to have the best of both difficult worlds; that is, to have bats in your house if you like them, and to be able to get rid of them if they are a great nuisance. And this does not apply only to a house; it applies to a belfry or wherever it may be. If my noble friend on the Front Bench is not able to say that he will do something about bats, then I assure him that the whole conservation world will be dissatisfied and we shall have to continue to press the Government.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I wonder whether I may put forward a slightly contrary view. Within the rarefied atmosphere of your Lordships' House, it is of the greatest interest to hear two experts talking about bats, and to both of my noble friends I would say that, in general, I have every sympathy with what they say. The point that I wish to make quite briefly is this: my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that there is a good deal of concern on the part of certain private owners. But if any private owner has a colony of bats in his house, it is probably known about by the Nature Conservancy Council. Is it not possible, therefore, for the NCC to come to some voluntary agreement with the private owners concerned—
The Earl of Cranbrook: On a point of clarification, when I used those words I meant to say that the owners of these houses are very much aware of the colonies in their houses. They very strongly support the presence of the colonies in their houses and are good friends of the bats.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My noble friend is merely underlining what I have already said: That most owners of houses where there are colonies of bats are very sympathetic to them. All I am saying is: can we not avoid the heavy hand of government being implicated? Can this not be brought about by good will between bat owners and the Nature Conservancy Council? I could not agree more with both of my noble friends. What they are seeking to do is eminently right—that is, to preserve bat colonies, particularly the important ones. My noble friend Lord Craigton said that there was a dilemma. The dilemma is that on the one hand we have those who wish, quite rightly, to preserve bats while on the other there are in this country millions of people with houses who do not want the heavy hand of government telling them what they are to do with the bats in their lofts.
Lord Craigton: There are far more colonies of bats elsewhere than in private houses. I am seeking to ensure that every bat colony will not be destroyed, which is illegal under the Bill, without talking first to the Nature Conservancy Council.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I quite understand what my noble friend is saying. I was trying to shoot down the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who spoke specifically about dwelling-houses.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I have a colony of bats under the eaves, just above a certain room. We have found over the years that if we keep about 200 bats,

1053
there is no trouble. The unhappy fact is that they breed not quite so slowly as my noble friend suggested. Something has to be done about it when they get up to 2,000, because the bedroom cannot be inhabited by the people we want to put in it. If the amendment is accepted, I hope that it will allow us to "ration" the bats in a humane way.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend Lord Cranbrook talked about six colonies of greater horseshoe bats in private dwelling-houses and said that the six people concerned were all very reasonable and honourable and were prepared to look after them. That is absolutely super. But what happens if two of those people grow old, want a smaller house and sell it and the person who buys it has ideas about redecoration, is not interested in nature conservancy or in bats and indeed could not care a fig for the bats in his attic, loft or wherever they may be? Surely there is then a question of worry which we ought to take on board and which we ought to listen to. There is a possibility that when good, reasonable, nature conserving people sell they may sell to somebody who is not quite so conscious of our animal heritage.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Melchett: Could I say that we on this side support both noble Lords? Of the two options, I think that the package, as he described it, of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, probably meets the fears which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. In other words, if bats were causing anybody any discomfort or disquiet or if the numbers were getting too high, under Lord Craigton's amendment one would contact the Nature Conservancy Council for advice about how to overcome the problem or about how completely to exclude the bats. That seems to me to be a very reasonable and full response to the problems which have been raised.
We may be confusing two different points. First, there are the very rare species, like the greater horseshoe bat, which are already protected. The Nature Conservancy Council would be in touch with the owners and would have very close contacts with them. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, that does not meet the problem if ownership changes. That did happen in the case of one of these houses, or the owner could not afford to maintain the roof. It involved voluntary organisations in spending many thousands of pounds which were readily raised from the public—this would disabuse those people who think that there is not a lot of public interest and support for preserving bats—and it was spent upon re-roofing the building. But that clearly is not possible in the case of all but the very rarest species. That is why the amendments to which the noble Lords opposite have spoken certainly have our very full support.
The Earl of Malmesbury: I support what my noble friend Lord Onslow has said. I was recently involved in trying to move a colony. It was a complete failure. This is one of the difficulties. One has to support the dwelling where the bats are at the moment. Moving them is almost an impossibility.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: May I re-emphasise what my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt has said and also what was said by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. We do not want there to be unnecessary legislation but, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has said, what is a welcome phenomenon if there is a reasonable number can become an impossibility. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, I find that necessarily the roof space or the cellar has to be exempted, even though one does not live there. In the attics of my home I store a lot of furniture, and in my cellar a little wine and china which is not in use. I should not like to have in those places a colony of bats which I could not do anything about. Also I have stables which are not now in use except for the storage of agricultural implements. There the bats have a high and jolly old time and there they are most welcome. So we have to be careful about over-legislating. What the exact balance is I am not quite sure. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend will say.
Lord Hale: I am surprised that nobody has referred to the fact that a few days ago bat soup was being sold on the streets of London. In view of the failure of one or two canning firms over rare products which have proved not to be palatable, we were told that the crowd of people who assembled to try the bat soup were, with one exception, delighted with it. So I think we must anticipate the possibility of a demand for bats for canning. This possibility does not seem to be covered by any clause in the Bill.
Secondly, could the noble Lord tell us what is the medicinal treatment for the trees which destroyed a bat colony? So far as the popularity of the bat is concerned, I believe that it is due almost entirely to the fact that bats were an essential part of the old Witches' Sabbath, particularly in France in the 11th and 12th centuries when the great historian Michelet wrote his book La Sorcière, which was the suject of a great deal of criticism from ecclesiastical circles and others. He pointed out that the sorceress in the village was the local doctor. She sold her animal remedies which were of great value to the community. That is possibly true. Therefore, I was alarmed to hear a year or two ago that the Church of England had said that they were going to retain the ceremony of exorcism in the rubric. One fears that it could easily be directed precisely to bats in the belfry. This would call for consideration.
Finally, the statement that if you ring up the county council you get advice does not apply to the grey squirrels which I have in my house. The excellent officer who has dealt with our rats is of the opinion that the grey squirrel is not part of the family which he was called upon to destroy.
Lord Melchett: May I remind my noble friend that the person who was attempting to get people to taste bat soup was arrested for obstruction. I hope this will be a lesson to those who want to encourage this deplorable practice.
Earl Ferrers: If I may add to that, I will merely tell the noble Lord that in fact all bats are protected and therefore they cannot be used for canning or for other

1055
such purposes. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook chided me, quite deservedly, for being slightly flippant, I suppose, and he asked whether what I had said was the advice of the Government scientist. In that part of the answer which I gave I was merely responding to a personal observation which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had made. If I have given offence to the noble Lord, of course I apologise and I can assure him that that particular part of my remarks was not the advice of the scientist or indeed of the officials.
We are in a slight dilemma here and I feel strongly that what my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt said was quite right. We have heard the opinions of two very distinguished experts and, indeed, scientists in regard to this problem and we have to balance the scientific argument against the practical realities of the people in whose houses these bats are found.
With regard to the definition of a dwelling-house, to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred earlier, a dwelling-house is a house with the added requirement that it is dwelt in and all the dwellers in which are absent only temporarily, having the intention to return, and therefore I think that the word "dwelling-house" in that respect would not cover a stable.
It is true, I suppose, that, in the words of my noble friend's amendment, bats would be found in the roof space, cellar or cavity walls of a dwelling-house and it could be argued—and indeed it has been argued by my noble friend—that their presence there could be tolerated or at least that the householder should not be able to act against them because they will not be infringing his living area. I accept that view as being one which would be expressed by those who are concerned to see the preservation of a species such as this, but, if one looks at the other side of the coin and one considers the position of the householder who may not have these particular affiliations to bats, I think it would be unreasonable to attempt to prohibit him from taking action to protect his own house.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that it would be wrong to take action against bats which were living in an area of a house legitimately occupied by bats. I really think that most householders would not agree with him: that if one purchases a house and that, if peradventure with the house or subsequently into the house comes a colony of bats, I do not know that most householders—or indeed lawyers—would consider that the bats were "legitimately occupying" the house. Despite the persuasive arguments of my noble friend I really do feel that it would be unreasonable to restrict householders in this way and indeed to put a curtailment upon them.
My noble friend Lord Craigton said that what he would like householders to do would be to get clearance from the Nature Conservancy Council before removing the bats. But supposing one goes to the Nature Conservancy Council and says, as my noble friend Lord Home said, "I have 2,000 bats and I should like to rid myself of at least part of that number", and the Nature Conservancy Council says, "Well, you cannot do that", is that a right power to give the Nature Conservancy Council? It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would merely like to see the Nature Conservancy Council consulted, but of course the Council is there to offer advice on any particular occa
1056
sion and I think that to write into a Bill that one should be obliged to consult the Nature Conservancy Council and, having consulted them, possibly pay no regard to what they have said, would be an undue restriction.
I am in sympathy with the scientific arguments which have been put forward by noble Lords, but I think that in practice it would be wrong to write into the Bill a restriction of this nature upon householders.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the noble Earl cast his mind on to the fact that there are six colonies of greater horseshoe bats and that the only ones are in private houses? What happens if all six houses are sold and the new owners say: "We do not like bats"? As I understand it, from what my noble friend Lord Craigton said, the greater horseshoe bat will then be exterminated in England. If the bats are there already surely a new owner, when he buys that property, must take on board the fact that there is something of great natural, historical and scientific importance in his house, and in the same way that he would not destroy a mediaeval flying buttress he would not destroy a colony of greater horseshoe bats.
Lord Melchett: I found what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had to say, particularly in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, extra-ordinarily unsatisfactory, and I cannot believe that what he said was based on any official scientific advice, because my understanding is that the NCC are regularly consulted by quite a large number of people who have problems with bats in their houses. That gives rise to no difficulties at all. They ask for advice and, on the whole, people take the advice. Occasionally they do not, and in such a case those bats are killed and there is nothing more we can do about it.
As I understand it, these amendments seek to ensure that in all cases where bats are going to be killed—and it is that which is involved in removing them from a house, unless it is done with the benefit of expert advice—those persons involved should be required to seek advice from the NCC. It is no more than that. That does not seem to me to be over-onerous or difficult. In fact it is probably doing people a service, because if somebody tries to exclude bats from their roof space without taking advice they are more than likely to seal up the hole that the hats are using to get in and out when the bats are in the loft rather than when they are outside, and be left with a lot of dead and rotting carcases in their roof. That would be a great deal more of a problem than live bats are ever likely to be.
I do not believe that the noble Earl has even remotely begun to give a satisfactory response to what seems to me to be a very moderate and modest proposal which would still leave a lot of bats being killed, but nevertheless would take some steps in the Bill very much in the spirit of the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that people should simply ask for and have the benefit of expert advice, but not be required to act on it. I do not think that is necessary, and from past experience it has not been necessary. I hope the Government will be a little more forthcoming to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, before he withdraws his amendment.
Lord Craigton: I hope that the Government will not come to any decision until we have considered the other two amendments. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said is quite right. I had no idea whatever of making it compulsory to follow the NCC's advice; simply that they should give people the best advice, and if the person wanted to get rid of the bats, then he must get rid of them. That was all I had in mind.
Earl Ferrers: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that if I have given an unsatisfactory answer that is a pity, but I really do not think there is much between us. The NCC gives advice on matters relating to bats. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett said, people frequently consult the NCC about bats. The only point I would wish to stress is, as my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt said, how far is it right to put an obligation in law in an Act of Parliament that a person must consult with the Nature Conservancy Council? I should have thought it would be undesirable to put that restriction in law, but of course we will consider the arguments which have been put forward today.
Lord Melchett: If I may respond briefly, there really is no point in listing bats as a protected species in the Bill unless the Government mean what they say, and it is quite clear that without something along the lines of the amendments, either that I proposed or those proposed by the two noble Lords opposite, listing bats as a protected species is a simple sham—a con trick. The Government do not actually intend to see them protected at all. That is why these amendments are so important.
Viscount Thurso: I think we are in danger of losing our sense of proportion here. There must be something like 15 million houses in this country and most of them are constructed as habitats for human beings and not as habitats for bats. In the case of six houses where there are interesting colonies of rare bats I think we have made out a very good case for special arrangements to be made to try to protect those colonies. This does not seem to me to justify our making it impossible for the owners of the other 14,990,000-odd houses in this country which arc constructed as habitats for human beings to be deprived of their ability to defend themselves from invading species of other sorts. I think we are tending to lose a sense of proportion.
4 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: May I be allowed to support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in regard to this particular aspect. As many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, know, I have a lot of bats, not only in my belfry, the chapel. I have a lot of bats in other parts of the house. What has happened? I make inquiries about capital transfer tax under the Heritage Bill. Then what happens? They say, "You have got to do this, you have got to do that, you have got to see to the dry rot, you have got to see to the woodworm, you have got to see to so-and-so". Your Lordships see what I am getting at. To treat your wood and your timber to see that your place does not fall down, under the rules appertaining to opening your house to the public and that sort of thing, you have got to do these things.
1058
As I see it, if these amendments are carried there will be another imposition. I do not know what my bats are. I am not particularly fond of them; my wife is, but that is another point. If these amendments are carried there will be one more imposition on the houseowner, that he cannot do this and cannot do that. I am trying to make the point that if he is to obey one set of rules about preserving his timber this will make him liable to be prosecuted because, by preserving the timber, he is getting rid of bats. I am all for having the least possible interference by Government or legislation in an Englishman's home.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Just briefly in answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken, may I once again draw attention to this pamphlet, which is produced by the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. I am sorry to have misinformed your Lordships. There are three paragraphs explaining precisely how bats may be driven out of a building without harming them, how bats may subsequently be excluded from a building, and how buildings may safely be treated against rot without in any way injuring the bat. These points have been thought of; information is available. Clearly this information is not yet widely enough disseminated.
If it is appropriate, I will say to my noble friends Lord Gibson-Watt and Lord Mowbray that, if we arc relying on goodwill, what on earth is this six-day performance for? We cannot, clearly, legislate for the protection of our wildlife without a great deal of really rather fearsome laws. I have been extremely heartened this afternoon by the realisation that in the main your Lordships have understood the problem and are in sympathy with what should be done in regard to bats. A considerable number of penalties have been proposed in regard to people who behave in an improper fashion towards birds, and I do not see any inconsistency whatsoever in applying the full rigours of the law in respect of bats. I envisage that, if suitable amendments can be found, there will be an obligation to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State if the owner of a house in which bats are found wishes to kill those bats, precisely as an owner of agricultural land which is suffering the depredations of a protected bird also has to seek a licence. I do not see any anomaly in those procedures. Again, the NCC would instantly be willingly engaged in activities to preserve those bats and to enable the householder to rid his house of bats if he so wishes—and, as I pointed out, many people do not so wish—keeping those bats alive and leaving them free to find an alternative roosting and breeding site. There are methods which are being perfected for excluding bats from houses where they are not wanted. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Home, and advise him that if he has a surplus of guano in his roof it is an excellent rose fertiliser.
It has become equally clear to me, that my amendment is a botched and amateurish attempt to get where we want to. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, with his far greater expertise and experience has put together a collection of amendments which I believe attain precisely the end desired, including the possibility of obtaining a licence if bats have to be killed, and otherwise seeking the advice of the appropriate experts if it is merely desired to exclude bats from a dwelling.

1059
I do not see why any householder need have a moment's concern if we support the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I am prepared to support him to the end, because I believe this is an important point. I believe, as Lord Melchett said, that if there is any sense whatever in legislating to protect bats, we must recognise the inevitable consequences of so doing and ensure that we give bats protection. My own amendment is not perfect, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 128:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert (" unless bats are occupying a place therein not ordinarily used for living purposes ").
The noble Lord said: I propose not to move Amendment No. 128. I wish to make the point on my last amendment.
(Amendment No. 129 not moved.)
The Chairman of Committees: I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 130 is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 11, leave out lines 27 to 31.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move, page 11, leave out lines 27 to 31. Clause 9 defines offences. Clause 10 provides exceptions, and there are quite a lot of them. We are dealing in this particular respect with the listed animals in Schedule 5. The animals in Schedule 5 are those given the highest protection under this Bill. Clause 9 defines the offences that may be committed by people who harm animals in Schedule 5. The lines that I propose to omit provide a line of escape; they are a let-out. Under this paragraph, (2)(a)
"the killing or injuring of a wild animal included in Schedule 5 if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage ",
et cetera, it is not an offence under Clause 10. If those reasons are valid for killing or injuring an animal under Schedule 5 it is not an offence.
Later on, we provide another exception in Clause 15; on page 15, it says in line 9:
"Sections 9 to 12 do not apply to anything done …"
and then lists another lot of exceptions, and one of them is:
"(h) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority".
So it looks as if a person granted a licence under certain circumstance to kill or injure animals in Schedule 5 may be excused doing that if the reasons adduced are those set out in Clause 15. But he is also let out of any culpable action if he pleads, under the clause that I read out earlier, that the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage, et cetera. So, he has two lines of escape. The first line of escape is if he has a licence and kills these animals under the terms of that licence. Secondly, if he has no licence—he has presumably failed to apply for one, or even applied for one but not been granted
1060
one—he can still plead, if he has killed an animal in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(a) on page 11, that he has a valid defence.
Do we wish to give people two lines of escape from their obligations to take care of the animals listed in Schedule 5? That is the point which I am raising. It is really first of all a standing exception and, secondly, it could be an emergency or other exception if a person pleads that he destroyed these animals to save crops et cetera as mentioned in Clause 10. I rather feel that, when we list animals—as we have in Schedule 5—for special protection, we must be careful not to provide too much licence to get out of it, especially when we consider the animals which are listed in Schedule 5. We have already spoken about bats, but there is mention in Schedule 5 of beetles, butterflies, crickets, a dragonfly, four moths, newts, the common otter, the harbour porpoise, three snails, a snake, a spider and the natter-jack toad. They do not sound to me a particularly dangerous lot from any point of view. I cannot imagine that selection of animals eating up anything very much or being a threat and causing
"serious damage to livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries".
There is an amendment which is waiting to be discussed which adds "game birds". I am not fully familiar with the capacity for damage of all the animals mentioned in Schedule 5, but, at first sight it seems to me that we do not really need to give people two possible "let-outs" from observing the conditions for the protection of these animals. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I wonder whether the Government could give us some possible catalogue of what damage could be done? I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is very valid. What could be done by the animals listed in Schedule 5 in relation to any of the matters for which excuses are laid down? I concede that dolphins could do damage to fisheries, but does "fisheries" in this context include cages for salmon in the sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland? As a farmer I spray in July against aphids on wheat. What is the position if by any chance—and I am certainly speaking with a certain amount of ignorance here because I presume that a chequered skipper butterfly is not likely to be on the wheat—a chequered skipper butterfly gets killed by accident or something like that? There seem to be questions which ought to be raised. I am not suggesting that we should support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton's, amendment but I think he has raised queries which need to be raised and to be answered.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like for a moment to support my noble friend Lord Houghton as regards this amendment. I moved a similar amendment to delete a corresponding paragraph—Clause 4(2)(a)—which was a similar escape clause in the case of birds. I pointed out then that if it was to be allowed at all it should be limited to authorised persons. The Minister gave an undertaking then that my proposal for the deletion of that paragraph would receive consideration. I think that it is just as necessary in this case and I certainly agree with my noble friend that, with the possible exception of the otter, all the species on the list seem to be extremely innocuous and will not cause

1061
any damage, let alone serious damage—as they have to do. However, the otter is such a delightful animal that I hope that this escape clause will not be permitted to remain in the Bill even in the case of the otter.
Lord Somers: I support the spirit behind the amendment because I must point out that one animal which has been looked upon as doing a great deal of harm to fisheries is the otter, which is now nearing extinction. I suppose that the kingfisher could also be included in that category. So, even if the amendment is not accepted as it stands, I hope that there will be provided an alternative which will have more or less the same effect.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said. As he said, the same philosophy, was discussed very fully when we were considering Clause 4, and I think that on that occasion I supported him and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the view that it should be done by an authorised person. I think that the Government promised to take the matter away and to look at it. I hope they will take it away on this occasion too. The only other point that I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—because I cannot support his amendment—is that Clause 15, as he knows as well as I do, would be very slow in action, and I think that it should be slow in action. I do not think that licences should be granted overnight, and this clause would help in that respect. The other matter that has been raised previously—and I do not want to go on about this because the principle behind all these points has been raised before as regards Clause 4—is that Schedule 5 could be changed very easily to include something else. I do not think that I can go along with the noble Lord's amendment, and I am sure that he would not expect me to do so. However, I do support him on the question of "authorised".
Lord Northfield: Before the Minister replies, I ask him to take his mind back to some of the discussions which we have had on the Deer Bill over the last three years. We originally had a very similar subsection to this one about which we were worried because it left such a great loophole in the Bill. We finally reached agreement—and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who has just spoken will remember this—on a form of words that tightened the situation up considerably: that it was not just a case of allowing killing when it was necessary for the purpose of preventing damage—we included such things as reasonable grounds for believing that the species had actually caused the damage; that the damage was serious; that it was likely that further damage would take place and that the action was absolutely necessary in order to prevent the damage. In other words, instead of having a great big loophole in these sort of circumstances, we tightened the matter up enormously. It is now part of my amendment, No. 188, dealing with deer. But this was an agreed form of words by the House as regards the Deer Bill, and in exactly similar circumstances. I hope that the noble Earl will look at that even if he cannot accept the amendment as a whole.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister in the amendment at all and I do not think it would have the far-ranging effects about which some of your Lordships have been concerned. This is a type of exception which is by no means new. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to the Deer Act; but this particular exception is one which is found in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. Of course, my noble friend Lord Stanley put his finger on the nub of the question, which is, as your Lordships will see in Clause 20(3)(a), that the Secretary of State has the right to add to any of the schedules any animals which he thinks may be in danger of extinction. Therefore, this is a provision in the Bill which protects a person against certain action which he may take to protect his property against animals which either are or may later be in Schedule 5.
Although we are anxious that people should not act in a way which would kill or injure any Schedule 5 creature, we must recognise that there may be occasions when such action, however regrettable, is necessary. We would hope that people who were faced with a persistent nuisance on the part of a protected animal would wish to obtain a licence to cover their actions. In that way they would better avoid the risk—and it is a risk—of successful prosecution, and the effects of their actions on the local population could be determined and might be a factor to be taken into account in setting the conditions which would be stipulated in the licence.
But there may be occasions when action, if it is to be effective, must be taken quickly, when time would not permit an application for a licence to be made, to be considered and to be granted. Subsection 2(a) has been drafted to cater for that situation. Without it, people may be tempted to act in defence of their livestock, crops and other forms of property, and in doing so would inevitably commit an offence. Even if they took this action now, they could still be prosecuted, but it would be up to them to show, as a defence, that the action which they took was in protection of their crops.
We do not wish an offence to be committed in the circumstances outlined in subsection 2(a); nor do we wish to see increasing offences in this manner to proliferate the number of offences. This leads to problems of enforcement, difficulties with the police, and burdens the courts unnecessarily. I believe that the defence which is available to persons acting in order to protect their properties to be reasonable, and I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would not seek to press his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend tell us what damage is possible under these provisions? My noble friend said several times "protect their property". Of course, people must protect their property. Having looked at the list of animals on Schedule 5, I do not think that a great deal of damage would be caused, with the possible exception of the dolphin which may cause damage to sea cages of salmon. What damage do greater horseshoe bats do? What damage do wart-biter grasshoppers and Essex emerald moths do? I do not know. But as my noble friend has gone on about the protection of property—which we would all

1063
accept and agree with—can Her Majesty's Government give some inkling of what damage they actually foresee?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that my noble friend could possibly have heard what I said, or, if he did, he did not address his mind to the problem. I tried to explain to him that in the Bill we are creating conditions for the future. I told him that it would be perfectly possible for other animals to be added to Schedule 5, in addition to those already on it. In framing legislation it is necessary to look to any eventuality for the future, and that is what we seek to do. My noble friend asked what damage was likely to be done, and he said that dolphins and otters could do a certain amount of damage. So they can. But we are trying to incorporate in a Bill the correct provisions for the future.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am probably deaf, but I thought that the whole object of this was to try to subtract animals from Schedule 5 and not add animals to the schedule. I do not know what damage any of the animals on Schedule 5 can do to anything, with the possible exception of the otter.
Earl Ferrers: In that case there would be no prosecution.
Lord Melchett: But there would be if people kill something and claim that they were doing so to protect property which they should not protect. I should like to pursue another point. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said and it mirrored very much what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said when we looked at Clause 4, where, before we amended it, exactly the same wording appeared. What the noble Earl said—just as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said—was that Clause 10(2)(a) has been drafted to allow people to take emergency action. But with great respect, it has not been drafted to allow people to take emergency action because there is nothing about emergencies, or taking such action when you cannot get a licence, and that sort of thing in the paragraph at the moment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said and as I can see, there might be occasions when it is not possible to obtain a licence. I am not thinking of any of the existing species in the schedule but, for the sake of argument, let us assume that something enormously damaging had to be added. Then it might be necessary to take action and it would need to be such an emergency that you could not get a licence. Even if one accepts that fairly tortuous series of steps—and I can see that there is a line of argument there—it seems to me that that ought to be reflected in the wording in Clause 10(2)(a). When we raised similar problems about Clause 4 the Government, in the shape of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, very kindly said that they would take the matter away and consider it. They had to consider the point about authorised persons, as my noble friend has already said, and they said that they would look at the general wording as well. I think that there is an overwhelming case, because it has already been accepted by the Government now on two occasions, that this let-out—which is what it is—should apply to
1064
cases where people are taking emergency action. If that is so, I cannot see any possible objection to the Bill saying that and I should have thought that it would be perfectly straightforward for the Government to draft something on those lines.
As they are looking at this in relation to Clause 4 anyhow, I would suggest that it would be sensible to look at Clause 10, because the wording, the intent and all the rest are exactly the same. They could take on board the various points, including the one about authorised persons, and try to reflect their intention in the wording; and I would accept that this should be there to allow people to take emergency action. I think that that would probably satisfy at least a great many of the fears that people have about this.
4.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I find this rather curious. On the one hand, my noble friend Lord Onslow is saying "What on earth is the matter with the animals listed in Schedule 5? They will do no harm". My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said the same; he said that these animals are perfectly harmless. Then the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, gets up and says that as the Bill is at present written this is giving a carte blanche to people to take these animals, which are totally harmless. That is the effect. If the animals are not doing any harm, the chances are that they will not be taken.
I am told by my noble friends that the animals listed in Schedule 5 are so harmless that they will do no damage. Then the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that there is a provision in this clause to allow people to take these animals if it can be shown that they are causing damage to their property. I am simply saying that there seems to be a non sequitur between the two arguments, but, of course, in the light of what has been said, I shall look at the problem again.
Lord Melchett: The reason that there was a non sequitur was that I was agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and he did not realise it.
Earl Ferrers: I am very stupid. I do not always realise it. It is such a rarity and it comes rather unexpectedly.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, withdraws the amendment—as I hope he will—I think that there is common ground here over authorised persons; and there is another point of commonality which I think both the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett, have missed. It is the point about adding to the schedule, which my noble friend Lord Ferrers raised. Believe it or not, I should like to see more animals on Schedule 5. But, if they are to be added, before they are added no doubt the Minister will consult the relevant people. I strongly suspect that one section of such people will be those concerned with agriculture. If there is no control over those animals, farmers will strongly object to them being put on Schedule 5. I think that this clause helps to put more animals on Schedule 5, with which I think we all agree.
Earl Ferrers: It will not have escaped the notice of my noble friend, nor indeed the rest of the Committee,

1065
that there is an amendment later to add the red squirrel to Schedule 5.
Lord Kilbracken: That amendment stands in my name and the red squirrel is another animal which has never been known to do any damage at all. It seems to me that the noble Earl has admitted that none of these animals ever does any damage because he cannot give any examples and he can only say that possibly at some future date other species will be added to the schedule. Surely no species would be added to the schedule if it is found to be liable to do any serious damage. If none of these animals does any serious damage what is the point of having this paragraph in the Bill at all? I strongly support my noble friend in his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It is obvious that a number of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee are a little uneasy about this matter, to put it no higher. If we are setting out to give full protection to certain limited species which are in need of it, then we must be seen to be giving that protection, otherwise people will be disposed to say, "Yes, but you can get out of that. It is all eyewash. There is no real protection for these animals because the moment they begin to damage any crops the owner can run for his gun and shoot them off, and if he is prosecuted he can raise as a defence that they were causing serious damage to his crops."
I shall in a moment, with some hesitation, beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that further thought will be given to this matter by the Government and also by those of us who still feel uneasy about this proposal. I should like to make one comment to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. We hear a great deal about farmers and how quickly they will be upset if their crops are damaged and their work is interfered with. As a matter of general doctrine, I think that farmers should understand that they are working with nature in natural surroundings. They are exploiting the land and the fruits—
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No. Allow me to say that they are exploiting the fruits of the land and there are certain tolerances which are called for in that situation. If there are species which the whole nation feels should be preserved and which are doing a little harm here and there to the farming industry, I think they must be prepared to put up with it. They are doing pretty well. I was chairman of the Farm Prices Review Committee three times when I was in the Government, and I used all my endeavours to give the farmers a good settlement—despite the fact that they threw chickens (dead chickens, I may say) at my noble friend Lord Peart after the first one.
There is something here that we must expect of the farming community; that is, that they should not regard damage to crops and the rest of it as providing them with an immediate cause for complaint and an immediate justification for action. I live among farmers. I come of a farming family, and I think I understand the problems pretty well, but the farmers would earn
1066
greater public approval if they were occasionally to understand what conservationists and others desire to achieve.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 not moved.].
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 11, line 33, after ("his") insert ("unlawful").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 135 perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 136. We wish to make clear by these amendments that a person who injures a protected wild creature and takes it, tends it, and later releases it, or who kills it because it has no reasonable chance of recovery, would not be guilty of an offence if he could show that the injury was not brought about by an unlawful act on his part. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 11, line 38, after (" his ") insert (" unlawful ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
4.35 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("or that in relation to bats he had before such act obtained authority from the nature conservancy council.").
The noble Lord said: To my mind, this is the most important amendment of the four that I have moved. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has pointed out, we really have this Bill to protect the bat and are doing nothing about it in this Bill. In this easy and slight amendment we have an opportunity, if your Lordships agree with me, to do something to protect the bat. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that many people have bats in their houses and appreciate them, but my advice from the ITE is that there are very many colonies of bats not necessarily in private houses but elsewhere which are being destroyed every day. As I said on a previous amendment, the population in the last two years has dropped 38 per cent.
I take the view that for many people who do not like bats a legal prohibition against destroying the colony in their building, barn, have it whichever way you will, would just not be obeyed even although under this Bill such a destruction would be illegal. If, before doing so, one had to take the advice—and that is all one has to take—of the NCC as in this amendment, then surely we should get results not only in the home but also wherever bats were in fact living.
Bats breed from June through to August. The colony is more likely to survive elsewhere if they are not driven out during those months. Furthermore, the Nature Conservancy Council, if asked, could advise the householder, or whoever owns the barn, how rare are the bats that they have, and they could either persuade him to treasure them or, if they felt that he was completely opposed to them, maybe for a very good reason, maybe not, they would give him the all-clear to perpetrate the deed but to do it at the right time and in the best way.
Unless it is the breeding season, the bats leave in the evening to feed, and my next amendment puts the exclusion operation into perspective. There is no need to use smoke or poison, or other illegal and unpleasant methods. The person owning the barn, or the householder, can make preparations well in advance knowing that it is quite legal to block up the holes while the bats are away feeding. This might take several evenings. It might be difficult, but on the whole it is possible to block up the places where the bats come in and out. It might take a little time, and the bats would find other entrances, but it would be done. The bats would not like it, but it would be done.
Experience is that some of the bats would then find new roosts and join other colonies. All I am asking is that anywhere where bats are roosting they should not be destroyed without clearance from the only experts we have in this country. It could be done by a telephone call. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Nature Conservancy Council should first be consulted before bats are destroyed. I beg to move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Can my noble friend enlighten me on one point? I have no argument at all with what he has just said to the Committee. What worries me is what is written down in his amendment. He said that there would be reasonableness and all would be well. However, what we have here is that you have to obtain authority. Suppose, for the sake of argument, the NCC have a mental obstruction at some moment and do not give permission? I agree it is unlikely, but nevertheless we are giving them an absolute power if they so wish.
Lord Craigton: I would be quite happy with simply consultation rather than authority, even though I know the NCC are now prepared to let the bats be destroyed if the owner wants that.
Lord Swinfen: I am very fond of bats, but I am wondering whether their protection, particularly that of the horseshoe bat, would not be best dealt with under Clause 26. Then, houses in which rare colonies are found could be designated as areas of special scientific interest, which might make things easier all round.
Lord Melchett: We strongly support the amendment, and I think that is clear. As I see it, the difficulty of dealing with this problem under Clause 26, apart from the enormous complications that that would lead to in the system of sites of special scientific interest—whether an attic could be such a site we could, I suppose, discuss at enormous length—is that the Bill would list all bats so that all bats would he protected, and clearly it would not be feasible to make all bat colonies sites of special scientific interest; there would be far too many. That is why I believe it is important to have something like the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is suggesting, with the change from "authority" to "consultation". I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, would prefer "consultation", and we should be happy to see that change made.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is
1068
right to say that if an amendment such as this were accepted it would cover all bats and not just those of a particularly rare variety, of which we heard earlier. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton is also correct in saying that the amendment as drafted would require any householder to get the authority of the Nature Conservancy Council and that, if that authority were not given, the householder would not be permitted to rid himself of those bats which he might wish to get rid of. My noble friend said he would be happy if the NCC were consulted. I should like to consider that suggestion. One hesitates to put into the Bill more and more obligations on people who may not realise that there are obligations on their dwelling-houses, but in view of my noble friend's request I will willingly consider what he said and perhaps at this stage he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am delighted with that response. All my hard work has been repaid and I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: In debating an amendment to this clause earlier the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked what "fisheries" meant. Because I was anxious to raise this point on the clause stand part, particularly as we did not get an answer from the Government earlier, I will pursue the point now, having given the Government some notice of my intention to raise it at this stage. I should like to know how wide the provision goes. Does it apply simply to fish in captivity, to any fish in any river, to part of the sea, or what? Perhaps the Minister will clear this up for us.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether I shall be able to clear the matter up for the noble Lord, but I will explain the position. As I understand it, there is no statutory definition of the word "fisheries". When using the term in the Bill we have had in mind its use in the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967, which are of course re-enacted in the Bill. The term "fisheries" is normally taken as a generic term—water where there is fishing—and it has been used in a similar manner in several international instruments of wild life conservation; I am thinking, for example, of the European Community's directive on the conservation of birds and Article 9 of the Berne Convention. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, considers that a generic term like "fisheries" is unduly wide and thereby widens the scope of the defences provided in Clause 10(2)(a), then I am willing to look again at the wording in an endeavour to meet his concern. There is no statutory definition of the word "fisheries" but my understanding is that it would cover those things to which my noble friend Lord Onslow referred.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: The Government had an amendment down which they did not move. I refer to Amendment No. 133 and I should like to know whether, when we speak about subsection (2)(a)—
Lord Melchett: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but perhaps it would be simpler to stick with fish for the time being before moving on to game birds, otherwise I shall get confused and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may find himself joining me in that confusion. I simply wanted to thank the noble Earl for what he said about the term "fisheries". It seems rather foolish if one could legitimately kill a protected bird or animal which was, for example, killing eels or pike, which would be desirable certainly from the point of view of those interested in catching things like trout and salmon. I cannot believe the exemption needs to go as wide as that and I am grateful the Government will be considering the point.
Lord Kilbracken: The Minister explained that fisheries were water where there was fishing. May I ask him to take that a little further and explain what "fishing" means? Does it include, for instance, fish farming? I imagine "fishing" means taking fish out of an expanse of water with a rod and line or a net, although I do not know if a net would be included. It would be relevant to know whether the removal of fish from a fish farm where fish were being raised commercially could accurately be described as fishing.
The Earl of Onslow: I am delighted to hear what has been said about a possible tightening up of the definition of "fisheries". It struck me that if one had a dolphin, then, if the definition means water where fishing takes place, it means that one could shoot or trap dolphin anywhere on the high seas, and I am sure that that is not what anyone wants.
Earl Ferrers: As I say, we will certainly look into this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked if it covered fish farming, and that is one of the points I shall be looking at in detail. I am bound to say that at the moment my opinion is that "fisheries" covers what might be described as wild fish, whereas fish fanning is a captive form of farming and in a way they are grown as a crop. Probably they would not come under the title of "fisheries", but I shall certainly look into that.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I apologise for raising another point earlier before the Committee had finished discussing fish. When we are dealing in Clause 10(2)(a) with serious damage to livestock, crops and so on, we know to what we are referring. "Live-stock" one normally thinks of as being captive bred animals on the farm, on the hoof in the field. The Government had tabled Amendment No. 133 concerning game birds and I wanted confirmation that game birds, wild or reared, were included in the word "livestock".
Earl Ferrers: I think game birds are one's property and are livestock in so far as they are being reared. However, once they are let out of a cage there is nothing to stop them from flying on somebody else's land, and one could then ask: Whose property are they, the property of the person who reared them or of the owner of the land on which they are temporarily sojourning? In effect, once they are released they become wild, and that is why we did not include the
1070
phrase "game birds" in the clause as was originally suggested by the amendment which I did not move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Is my noble friend not slightly leading me astray? I am talking about game birds on one's own land, land which one is farming or otherwise owning; I am not talking about what happens when they have flown elsewhere. If I see predators coming along and damaging game birds, shall I be allowed to take action?
Lord Melchett: We had quite a long discussion of this on Clause 4 when we were considering the protection of birds and where exactly the same provision appears. My recollection is that we all agreed that when game birds were birds being reared; in other words, pheasants in a release pen or on a rearing field were included in the word "property". However, once it was wild, a wild bird, whether or not it was a game bird, was not included. But, of course, if a species of vermin comes along and attacks any of these things none of this applies, anyhow, because it applies only to specially protected things, and I do not know that the chequered skipper, the harbour porpoise or any of the other various things are all that likely to do enormous damage to the noble Lord's pheasants when they are at liberty.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put the point infinitely clearer than I would have been able to put it. All I would tell my noble friend is that if he is rearing birds and he has got them in a cage and some pest eats them, then he is entitled to kill the pest. If some rare animal mentioned in the schedule eats them, then he is entitled to take action while they are in the cage; but once my noble friend has released his pheasants from the cage and they fly about, whether on his land or on anybody else's land, the provisions of the Bill apply.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Other animals which are protected]:
[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]
4.52 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 49, line 48, at end insert—
("Moth, New Forest Burnet Zygaena viciae").
The noble Lord said: This is an unusually modest amendment to add to Schedule 5 a particular, rare moth, the New Forest Burnet moth. My information is (though I do not claim to be any great expert) that this moth is the only species of insect in regard to which there is documentation of its destruction by collectors in its original New Forest habitat. It has been particularly carefully studied. At present, in spite of its name, it is not found in the New Forest at all but is known from only one locality a long way away from the New Forest, in Scotland. I am advised that it is certainly an animal which should be in Schedule 5 and which badly needs the protection that that schedule would provide for it. I hope the Government will be able to accept its inclusion, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has been so particularly helpful that, despite the fact that the New Forest moth does not live in the New Forest but in Scotland, I am more than happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 143A:
Page 50, line 5, leave out (" common ") and insert ("aurasian").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment my intention is to draw attention to certain anomalies in the construction of these schedules. The earlier schedules to this Bill list animals (by which term I include birds) in the alphabetical order of one or other name arbitrarily chosen from their vernacular English name. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in moving Amendment No. 86, discussing whether the birds concerned were rosefinches or grosbeaks, has already drawn attention to the sort of anomaly which can arise. Where birds are concerned, on that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Avon, from the Front Bench, pointed out that there was a single authority available, and this is the 1977 helarctic bird list, which was in fact published by the British Ornithologists Union under (if I may claim so) my editorship. Therefore, so far as birds are concerned there is one authority and it is sensible to use vernacular names.
Where other organisms are concerned, there is a sort of hotchpotch of names. For example, "Beetle, Rainbow Leaf I know for a fact is a name which was invented for the purposes of the amendment to the 1975 Bill that was proposed by my late father, but I think that I myself had a hand in that invention. So that is a name which has no currency whatsoever, really, apart from the fact that it appears to be quite a nice name to give to that particular beetle. When we come on to other insects in Schedule 5, again in certain cases the names are just invented for the purpose.
It is extremely difficult for anyone with any zoological background and it is extremely difficult for anyone who is not a native English speaker—that is to say, the many people in the European Community who will be referring to our schedules in order to check what animals are or are not protected in this country—to make head or tail of a list of organisms which has no relation whatsoever to their natural ordering, to the kind of animal that they are, broadly speaking, and uses names which cannot be found in any other published source. I suggest that the style and approach of all the schedules should follow that in the latter part of our Bill, beginning on page 55, where the Latin name, which is of international currency, is indisputable and cannot be argued about, is the dominant name in law and the first name to appear.
I draw attention to this whole anomalous situation (which, I repeat, to a zoologist is as crazy a hotchpotch as a mad woman's shopping list) by pointing out that the animal which we consider so rare and so endangered that it requires protection is called in one list, in this list in Schedule 5, the "Otter, Common", which seems to me to be an anomaly, and yet when you look at Schedule 9 you find that it is called the "Otter, Aurasian", which seems to me to be a nonsense. I do not seriously propose to insist that we should begin to call our otter, which surely is of that ilk (if I may use a
1072
Scottish phrase) by any name other than "otter "; but in moving this amendment I would be grateful to hear the opinion of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that when I first saw this amendment I had a horrible feeling that my noble friend (dare I say it?) had made a mistake, or that the printers had made a mistake. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that in fact it was supposed to be "eurasian", whereas in fact what is printed on the Marshalled List is "aurasian". I may well be wrong about that, but it does of course reflect what is known as the common otter, which, as my noble friend quite rightly said, is a curious misnomer for something which is endangered. I think that probably the best way of resolving this problem would be to refer to it as "Lutra lutra" and just the "otter". If my noble friend were happy with that position, perhaps we could put it right at the next stage.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am absolutely delighted with that solution, which is precisely the one I proposed. I would only point out in self-defence that this curious word "aurasian" is taken directly from Schedule 9 of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 143B:
Page 50, line 5, at end insert—
("Marten, Pine Martes martes").
The noble Lord said: For the information behind this amendment I am indebted to Dr. Kathryn Velander, of the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Edinburgh, who is currently conducting a study on the pine marten. Until the early 1900s the marten was widespread in Britain, and as a result of persecution by man by 1926 it had in fact become very rare. It was pushed back to restricted areas on the West Coast of Scotland. By the 1960s, helped, probably, by the lack of keepering during the war, the marten was beginning its recovery and had spread inland as far as the Great Glen, and into North-East Scotland in some cases. The increase took 40 years, and was a very slow comeback, possibly due to the relative reproductive potential of the marten, which produces only one litter per year with only two to three young born per litter. Hence, if the population is diminished, replacement is slow.
Perhaps some of these facts and figures are not in the possession of the department at the moment. Dr. Velander's study only began in October and she is already finding that in some places where in the recent past martens used to occur, they are no longer present. They are still being trapped, shot and poisoned, where they still exist, and in some cases pelts are being sold and appear to be desirable to the locals because of their rarity as well as their beauty. The attitude of many, she reports, seems to be, "We ought to get one before they die out ". I am not necessarily asking for a complete answer at this stage, but I think there must be

1073
a considerable amount of up-to-date information in that which I have received from Dr. Velander. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would consider its insertion in the schedule. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. Some 30 or 40 years ago it was almost extinct. It is true that it is still rare, but it has increased, particularly in the Eastern Highlands. This is largely due to the great increase in afforestation that we have had; but I still think that it ought to be included in Schedule 5, because it is still a rare animal and also a comparatively harmless one. It will certainly take poultry and eggs, but I have always said that it is up to the poultry keeper, the farmer, properly to fence in his poultry. If he properly protects his poultry, the pine marten cannot damage them at all. I ask that the pine marten be included in this schedule. It is a most likeable animal and it is comparatively harmless.
Lord Dulverton: While having some sympathy with my noble friend in what he has just said, may I say that the pine marten can climb fences of whatever height.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for putting down his amendment and for giving us the opportunity of hearing the result of the research to which he referred. I am advised that the pine marten does not fulfil the criteria for addition to Schedule 5; that is, it is not in danger of extinction in Great Britain or likely to become so endangered. My information is that the species has spread considerably since its range became greatly restricted in the early years of the present century and it is now found in the Lake District, in the Scottish Highlands and in Wales. As a tree-living species, it has been considerably helped by afforestation, and the animal has benefited from a reduction in its persecution by gamekeepers and fur hunters. Therefore, I do not think that there is any justification at the moment for including it in the schedule, but I will give consideration to the views expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: Certainly, I think it would be accepted that there has been some increase in numbers of the pine marten from a very low base indeed in Scotland. But it is possible in the schedule to limit protection to particular geographical areas. The otter was protected in England and Wales. Now that the pine marten is managing to spread to the Lake District, would the noble Earl consider Lord Beaumont's information, which the rest of us have not seen and which may well present a strong case for protection throughout Great Britain? If that is not the case, it would be worth considering whether protection might be given in England and Wales, and not in Scotland. That could be considered at the same time.
Earl Ferrers: I should be delighted to do so.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I accept what the Minister has said. I think that this amendment may have been useful, in that I hope it may alert the authorities to the possibility that we are seeing a reversal again.
1074
Dr. Velander's evidence does not cover the whole of the field, but if she has begun to see that territory occupied by this animal is ceasing to be occupied, given the low rate of reproduction, there may be a need to act if the population goes into reverse, so I hope that this debate will ensure that the authorities keep an eye on the possibility of including the pine marten in the schedule if at any stage the position gets worse. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 50, line 13, at end insert—
(" Squirrel, Red Sciurus vulgaris ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 190, which I think is consequential. The purpose of my amendment is to add the red squirrel to the animals protected in Schedule 5. Amendment 190 would remove it from Schedule 6. Perhaps I may begin by saying that I am not clear why some animals appear on both schedules. Schedule 6 deals with those which may not be killed or taken by certain methods. If they are already completely protected under Schedule 5, I do not see why they need the special protection of Schedule 6; although nearly all the mammals in Schedule 6 are also included in Schedule 5. Be that as it may, I hope very much that the Government may find it possible to include the red squirrel among those specially protected.
Most of your Lordships over the age of 40 or 50 years will know from your own personal experience how the number of red squirrels has diminished steadily over the last 15 years. I remember—although this is in Ireland, and beyond the scope of the Bill—that when I was a boy they were common in the woods and then the grey squirrel came in and, in the course of time, the red squirrel disappeared. That is happening all over the country. I have not done the amount of research that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, showed with respect to the pine marten, but I believe that it must be considered a species that is now endangered. If that is the case, then it would qualify for inclusion in this schedule. As it is a particularly attractive animal and in view of the fact that, to my knowledge, it does no harm of any kind, I hope it can be given this special protection. I beg to move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I should like very much to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in this amendment, together with his Amendment No. 190. I was slightly frightened—I was about to say, "alarmed", but that it too strong a word—by what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said a moment ago about the pine marten: that because it was not to his mind sufficiently in danger of becoming extinct he saw no necessity for it to go into Schedule 5. The red squirrel is at the moment in no danger of becoming extinct, but it is rapidly being squeezed. As we all know, the grey squirrel is not a very friendly animal to his cousin the red squirrel—if it is his cousin. We really should do everything possible to encourage its protection. I can see no reason why anyone should want ever to kill a red squirrel. I can understand it being taken for a zoo by certain methods but for killing the red

1075
squirrel I cannot see any justification at all. I am slightly frightened by the fact that we are not prepared to protect an animal while it is still in reasonable numbers in only small parts of this kingdom. I happen to be lucky enough to still have the red squirrel as the natural animal at my home in Angus. I have no grey squirrels, happily. God forbid that the day should come when, because there are a few red squirrels about, one can be told that it cannot go onto the list. If we do not do something now, then shortly it will not exist.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when we were talking about bats and dolphins, was saying, "Yes, we can add to Schedule 5". Here is a perfect example of something to add to Schedule 5.
Baroness David: We should like very strongly to support this amendment. The evidence that the red squirrel is disappearing is pretty strong. In 1945 it was still found in most counties of England, and in some areas such as East Anglia it was quite abundant. By 1971, when the Mammal Society published its provisional distribution maps of British mammals, the red squirrel's distribution was a bit patchy but it was totally absent only from the Midlands through to the South-East. Now, a decade later, the red squirrel has almost disappeared from the English countryside and its place has been taken by the invading grey squirrel. A few severe winters could even wipe out the Scottish populations (which, it has been recognised, are greater than the English) just as happened, apparently, in the last century. So we hope very much that the Minister will be prepared to add this. We do not want the red squirrel just to remain as a character of fiction in Beatrix Potter books.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Will the Minister explain why some names are on both schedules and some are not? That is beyond me. My noble friend raised that point.
5.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is quite right, his noble friend raised the point. I was going to try to explain it to him. These matters are a trifle complicated even after one has looked at them several times. Schedule 5 refers to animals which one cannot kill or take without a licence. Schedule 6 is a restriction on the methods of killing for those particular animals which appear on the schedule; but other methods can be used for other animals. That is the complication on those two schedules. Regarding the red squirrel, which the noble Lord asked to be put on this schedule, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, castigated me for making a speech which I had not made. He said "Why on earth can we not add these things to the schedule? We must be told why they cannot be added to the schedule ". But had he held his patience a little, I should have been able to tell him that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Onslow that this is a perfect example of something which could be added to the schedule.
It is said by some—indeed the noble Baroness said so earlier—that the red squirrel was being pushed out by the grey. That is what I understood was the practice.
1076
In fact I am advised that very often the grey squirrels move in where the red squirrels have become rare. In some parts of the country the red squirrel is a rarity. In others, I understand, it can almost be a pest.
I propose to accept Lord Kilbracken's amendment and include the red squirrel. In those cases where the red squirrel is a pest, a licence can be provided after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I am sure that that will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Craigton, even though it does not refer to bats.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Can my noble friend tell me where his advisers have ever found the red squirrel to be a pest?
The Duke of Atholl: Perhaps I may answer that. It is very difficult to keep the red squirrel from the seeds of trees, fir cones and such like, when you wish to gather them and grow young trees in your nursery. The red squirrel has the advantage that it can get up a tree when the seeds are ripe much more quickly than any forester can. Foresters find the red squirrel a great nuisance. I am pleased to say that I have only red squirrels, so there is no doubt that it is the red squirrel and not the grey that does the damage. I thoroughly support the view of my noble friend on the Front Bench that they can be a pest. I do not say that it would ever be such a pest that it would be right to kill it in large numbers, but I can see that there might be an occasion when people might have to kill one or two red squirrels which could be particularly damaging to rare trees which they wished to propagate.
Baroness Phillips: As the Government have accepted the amendment, particularly on the injunction of my Front Bench, I should not like to prolong the discussion. I found some of the arguments slightly strange, in that, if the grey squirrel is so unkind to its cousin, any Act of Parliament which protects the red squirrel will not be read by the grey squirrel! It seems a curious argument to advance in favour of protecting the squirrel.
I think that we have to go on the record as saying that surely the predator here both for this and for the pine marten must be the people who want the furs. Furs from both are still available. Although we know that these animals are not supposed to be killed for their fur, undoubtedly this goes on. In blaming the poor grey squirrel for killing his cousin we are introducing a provision in an Act of Parliament which will do nothing to stop that at all.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The grey squirrel does not only kill his cousin. He strips all the sycamore trees and other trees from the top when they are about 8 or 10 years old. He kills hundreds of thousands of young hardwood trees.
Viscount Mountgarrett: Could there be some compromise? Perhaps we could put the red squirrel onto a list of completely protected animals and then, if anybody found that a substantial amount of damage had occurred, they could apply to cull a certain number of them, as in the case of certain protected birds.
Earl Ferrers: In the interests of expedition, if by accepting an amendment one gives rise to such a rumpus and disagreement, I shall be very much inclined not to accept amendments! As I said I would on this occasion, I shall. In answer to my noble friend Lord Mowbray, who asked where this had been found to be a pest, I am advised that in certain Forestry Commission areas and certain northern parts of the United Kingdom it can be found to be a pest.
Lord Kilbracken: I am delighted that, having got the bewick swan on to one schedule yesterday, I have managed to get the red squirrel onto another schedule today. I know that the noble Duke may feel slight apprehension about this, but I must mention that in my own experience the red squirrel does not do any damage to trees; but perhaps I grow different trees from the noble Duke.
The Duke of Atholl: If I may just interrupt, it is not damage to the trees (which I agree is virtually nonexistent); it is that they take the seed from the trees when the seed is ripe for taking and propagating in the nursery. That is the trouble. I agree that the damage to trees is minimal.
Earl Ferrers: May I suggest that we get on? We are hoping to get to the end of Part I of the Bill tonight and that means dealing with 40 pages of amendments. So far, we have completed 3 pages.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If the pine marten is going to be added to Schedule 5 of the Bill—which I would support—I wonder whether the Government will bear in mind that farmers will need the provisions we have been talking about under Clause 10 which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said might not be needed.
Earl Ferrers: The point is taken. I said that I did not think that it would be suitable to include the pine marten in Schedule 5; but of course I take into account what has been said.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals]:
5.20 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 12, line 2, leave out (" self-locking ").
The noble Lord said: We come to Clause 11, which deals with various methods of killing and taking wild mammals, which are to be prohibited to a greater or lesser extent. I must say for myself that I find the whole clause fairly difficult to follow, and we have already had some fairly detailed debates on certain aspects of it, such as those relating to automatic and semi-automatic weapons, which are mentioned further
1078
on. I suppose that the answer is that the clause has been drafted on the basis of some European provision. Nevertheless, it seems to me a fairly difficult clause to follow in any logical way.
However, having said that, by deleting the term "self-locking" in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 11(1), Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 would make the snaring or the injury of any wild mammal an offence. I realise that the amendment goes rather farther than some noble Lords would think practicable, but it seemed to me important that when we came to this clause we should discuss the issue of snaring, and in particular the appalling consequences of snaring which is carried out in the countryside at the moment. There are other amendments, which we are to come to later, proposing the banning of the snaring of foxes, but perhaps it would be convenient to discuss them with this amendment. I want to say a word on this point, because my amendment would achieve that purpose, along with a number of others.
One mammal which suffers from snaring is undoubtedly the badger. Badgers are not suitable animals to snare. Snares set for foxes, rabbits and other creatures undoubtedly regularly catch badgers in areas where they are common and cause them enormous suffering. As noble Lords will know, the badger is a very strong, robust animal. It is extremely difficult to kill a badger at the best of times, and a snare is certainly not a suitable means of doing so. No doubt many badgers suffer very long, agonising deaths or appalling injuries, with legs bitten off, when caught in snares.
The fact that snaring is cruel and is a danger to domestic stock is I think incontrovertible. A booklet which looks at methods of control in general of wild animals in this country has been produced by a working party which includes in its membership representatives of a wide range of organisations, including two from the British Field Sports Society, and representatives from the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Masters of Foxhounds and Otterhounds Association, as well as assessors from the Home Office and a number of other bodies. The booklet said of snaring that,
" There is no doubt that snaring, though effective, does involve a degree of cruelty and also a danger to domestic stock ".
I now turn to the question of foxes. We have in the past had discussions on this matter in your Lordships' House in relation to another Bill, and there is no doubt that foxes arc being snared in quite enormous numbers in the countryside and that this has increased a great deal very recently. For example, in 1975, 9,810 red fox skins were sold by Hudson's Bay and Annings Limited, which is the largest auction house, and which is to be congratulated on keeping accurate records of the furs that it sells. Of that total, 565 skins were from Britain or Ireland. Four years later, during 1979, the same company sold 50,000 red fox skins, which were caught from the wild, including 16,182 of British and Irish origin, the market value of which approached £400,000.
Looking at the total trade in fox skins, it seems that from those handled by the trade there were probably about 100,000 red fox skins of British and Irish origin sold in 1979. Then of course a large number changed hands privately. One dealer—who may be the largest,

1079
but nevertheless is a single dealer—had a mailing list of 10,000 skinners, all of whom would be sending him at least two or three skins a season. So that is another 30,000 skins on top of the 1000,00 skins going through trade sources.
People at Oxford University who have carried out a careful study of this matter say that an estimate of about 100,000 red fox skins from Great Britain would be of the right order of magnitude. It seems to me that that rise in red fox skin trade has enormously increased the number of snares set in the countryside, since almost all foxes taken for their skins will have been snared. The researchers who produced those figures on the number of foxes taken also looked at the effect that that was having on wildlife in the countryside in general. They based their research on having contacted a number of gamekeepers, which was done with the aid of the Gamekeepers' Association. Almost all the gamekeepers contacted agreed that more foxes were being killed in their areas, many by people other than gamekeepers themselves. Gamekeepers knew of people who were specialising simply in snaring foxes for their pelts.
The authors of the research say that,
" Even in the most skilled hands the unintentional capture of other non-target species cannot reliably be avoided when snares are set ".
Of course, the non-target species, besides the badger, that I have mentioned, and the otter, which is another regular victim of snares, will include deer and domestic pets. The authors of the research go onto say that,
" Although skill and thoughtfulness in setting and checking snares can minimise the risk of a lingering death, it cannot eliminate it. Some of the hands now setting snares for foxes are inexperienced and neither skilled nor compassionate. So it is undeniable that if the lure of monetary gain encourages more people to set snares, then more individuals and non-target species will have been caught, and very probably caught badly. Badgers arc frequently caught in snares set for foxes ".
The authors go on to conclude that the badgers are probably the real losers in the present vogue for fox fur.
I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the dangers of the use of the snare and the problem that has been caused by greatly increased use over recent years, encouraged by the enormous market which has grown up in a very short period of time—four or five years—for fox furs. I hope that on that basis the amendments will commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
5.29 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support the noble Lord. The trouble with snaring is that it is so indiscriminate. It requires a very experienced person to avoid catching a badger when a snare is being set for a particular animal. On the whole the badger tends to carry its head lower than does the fox. A man who knows his job will probably not catch a badger in a snare. Apart from that, I have always regarded snaring as the most horrible form of trapping animals. When I was a boy I used to go around with keepers and they used snares to catch thousands of rabbits. Presumably in those days before myxomatosis, when there were plagues of rabbits, snaring was the most effective way to get rid of them; but it was horrible, most distasteful, to see the swollen heads.
1080
Also, if a man sets a snare he would of course set it in the evening; but if he does not go round the next morning the wretched animal may be in the snare for 36 hours or even longer. It is fiendishly cruel. I have seen foxes, and badgers too, which have dragged out the snaring pin and which have died from gangrene. The snare may get caught round their body and their stomach is almost cut in half. Also it is well known that the fox and the badger, if caught by a foot or leg, as happens sometimes, will bite their leg off. I think the whole procedure is most horrible.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right in what he said about fox skins. A tremendous number of foxes are being snared now and one can get between £20 and £30—perhaps even more—for a fox pelt. Snaring does not hurt the fur and therefore is the most effective way of trapping a fox. I know a keeper who made over £3,000 the winter before last in snaring foxes: I do not know whether his employer knew that, but I knew it. I will not delay the Committee any further but I should like to support this amendment because, apart from the cruelty aspect, it is rather illogical that we have the badger as a protected species and it is quite likely, if you put down a snare for a fox, that you catch a badger.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that the Committee will insist on this amendment going into the Bill. It took us a long time to get rid of the gin trap in England, and longer still to get rid of it in Scotland. I thought that the assurances given to some of us during the period of the Labour Government meant that we were really going to see the end altogether of snaring when this legislation came forward. The snare is a horrible thing, and if one sees animals in a snare—the RSPCA have been collecting photographs and so on throughout the country—one must feel that this way of taking animals should stop.
Who, after all, is asking for it to be retained?—only those, I suggest, who have a commercial interest in exploiting our wildlife in the manner which my noble friend Lord Melchett has described. I recall the attempt which was made by my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton to stop the export of furs from this country to Europe. He got the Furskins Bill through this House, but no time was found for it in the other place and so it fell. But my noble friend drew attention to the increasing traffic, in fox furs especially, of exports to Europe, and to the high prices being paid for them.
With all the care and all the compassion, the erudition and talent of all your Lordships on this Bill, wildlife is fighting a losing battle everywhere. It is difficult to foresee the survival of species that are commonplace today if the present rate of commercial exploitation goes on. It is incredible to me that there are people who are ready to see any crime committed against wildlife so long as there is commercial profit in it. It is disgraceful. And when we talk of the depredations of birds and other species on other birds and species, we ought to take into account also some of the dreadful specimens of humanity who are doing this enormous damage to our wildlife heritage.
So I hope that the snare can now be banned altogether. There are other and more humane ways of taking animals these days, if they must be taken.

1081
Quite obviously, we are going to suffer serious damage if this traffic is allowed to continue. I think it is a pity that we are not taking into account in this Bill the damage done by making it possible for profitable exports to expand as they are doing at the present time. I hope emphatically that your Lordships will pass this amendment.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Glenkinglas: I think every single member of this Committee would agree that a snare is a nasty method of catching any animal, and so indeed was the gin trap, to which the noble Lord referred. He said that the gin trap had continued to be used in Scotland for some time longer than in England. That was for one reason and one reason only, which was that at that time it was the only method by which you could keep foxes under control on your farming areas. As many of your Lordships know, I happen to live in a farming area. I suppose we have killed in the last 30 or 40 years an average of 80 to 100 adult foxes every year, sometimes by shooting and in the old days by gin traps. Now a certain number are taken by snaring.
It is all very well for noble Lords to say that the fox is an inheritance and that we must keep it, and how wicked it is that one should use a snare; but I should like your Lordships to see a few photographs of mangled sheep. I do not think they would find the sight particularly attractive—and that is what happens, year in and year out, to attractive little things like lambs, which everybody is fond of. I am not a passionate admirer of the fox. We are keen on preserving endangered species: the fox is not. It will eat every single one of the animals we put on our various lists if it is good to eat. The fox does not care in the least, except to be able to eat. I think it is perfectly right and proper that one should ban the snare, but only when someone has devised some method of controlling foxes on the hills. I know that is not easy to do because many who arc concerned in these matters in the Ministry of Agriculture and in the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have spent a lot of money and many years in trying to find a method of controlling foxes in hill country. We have all waited, hoping that they will get results, but not one has yet come. There is simply no method at present except continuously prowling round with rifles or guns in the hope of controlling the numbers. It is not just a simple, easy problem of whether one uses snares or gin traps: it is a question of the proper balance and the proper use of your land.
In the old days we used to export foxes in considerable quantities from my part of Scotland to areas in England which wanted more healthy hill foxes so that the hunting was better. I personally did not mind too much whether we exported them or not so long as we got rid of them off the hills. My only worry at that time was not as great as it is today about endangered species—because now I realise the great danger that was to your Lordships, who are yourselves likely to become an endangered species! Perhaps we ought not to have encouraged so many noble Lords to damage themselves considerably on horseback in pursuit of foxes. Be that as it may, this is not an absolutely simple and straightforward question. It is something with which I would agree 100 per cent. if there were some alterna
1082
tive method of saving the lives of tens of thousands of sheep all over Scotland.
The Earl of Onslow: May I—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May we have a word from this side, please? What we who are supporting this amendment object to is cruelty. It always seems to me that the people who arrange the good hunting country and see that there is good hunting know how many foxes there are where they are, and if there are too many they hunt them and also gas their earths. Why should this kind of thing not be done in the noble Lord's area? It is only a question of taking trouble and using modern methods.
Lord Glenkinglas: May I just answer that point, because the noble Lord is perfectly right; it is only a question of taking trouble. As regards gassing, we would need more gas than the whole of Porton could produce in a year, in order to deal with the kind of places that our foxes live in, because they are not earths; they are enormous falls of rock and no amount of gas would deal with them. If the noble Lord used his influence to see that we had a subsidy for about three men full-time every year, then I could control the foxes. But, without that, it is a human question and a cost question. One is dealing with many tens of thousands of acres of hill land, often with no keepers on at all.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say, first, that one could probably get a licence for dynamite, and, secondly, it seems to me that the area which the noble Lord is trying to control is too large for him.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, because it is not only in the hill areas where it is very difficult to kill foxes. In some areas, particularly in the South of Scotland where there are enormous forests, it is quite impossible to hunt foxes. Hunting is one of the ways in which we used to kill them, but you cannot do that now because there are hundreds of foxes and, if you go out hunting, the hounds get into a vast forest and they are all lost. So far from hunting being any good for killing foxes, it does no good at all.
As regards the number of lambs who are victims of the cruelty of the fox—and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is very concerned about cruelty, as we all are—the fact remains that the number has grown vastly. I live in the middle of the forestry area. I have lived in the middle of a hill area where our main crop was lambs, and the shepherds became absolutely hysterical at lambing time, because we simply could not keep the foxes down. We tried to gas them in their earths and we tried to shoot them, but it is jolly difficult to shoot foxes. It is much easier to chase them with hounds. That is not particularly kind either, but nature is not kind. Foxes are not kind and you cannot be sentimental about these problems; otherwise you will simply be overrun by vermin.
There is a great deal of well-meaning rubbish talked about how to deal with these matters. You have to deal with them as best you can, and if you do not deal with them you will absolutely ruin the sheep industry. I feel very strongly about this, just as strongly as I feel

1083
about not being cruel. But it is just as cruel for the foxes, or any other vermin, to eat the lambs, as it is for us to kill the vermin, which is what we must first do.
The Earl of Onslow: As one of the noble Lords who have been an endangered species—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: May I speak from these Benches? I have not intervened often in your Lordships' debate this afternoon, in the vain hope that we might make some progress. It seems to me that the cases which are being made out by the two different sides in this argument are both valid. We all agree that snares are a very cruel form of killing and should not be used by man, unless he cannot help it. Equally, I am quite clear that the case which is being made out for the necessity of keeping them on large hill areas is also valid, and that the amendment as it stands is not one which we should support.
But I suggest that we ought to take this away and try to approach the matter on an area by area basis. Just as we are doing certain things in this Bill for the protection of animals, by giving licences for them to be killed in certain areas where they may be a pest, although they are rare elsewhere, we should take this away and see whether we can put together a series of amendments to this Bill which will outlaw all snares in the greater part of the ordinary cultivated countryside, which covers most of England, and a certain amount of Scotland and Wales, but which will give licence to continue using snares in those parts of the country where there is obviously very little alternative. That might be a way forward.
The Earl of Onslow: I think I was referred to as the unintentional victim of foxhunting. Two or three points have arisen, but there are a few which have not arisen and to which I should like to speak. First, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke about the unintentional victims of snares. I suggest that fen traps, poisons and any legitimate form of taking wild animals will also have unintentional victims. Secondly, the fox is so widespread. Noble Lords have spoken of the hill farm foxes. The numbers of foxes that there are in Putney and Wimbledon are legion. The other day, I met a gentleman who was out shooting. He said that he has a farm which is close to somewhere like Caterham, and that this year they have shot 120 pheasants—it is only for the family—and 140 foxes. These are suburban foxes and they are a problem.
In good hunting country, there is a certain discipline about where the foxes are. It is good hunting country mainly because there are special preserves for foxes and large areas where they cannot live. There is a certain balance about it, and those areas are very carefully conserved for lunatics, such as myself, to go leaping across other people's fences and chasing them after hounds. There is a fox habitat and they cause damage in forestry—though less, perhaps—and in hill farms.
The health danger in towns, which could arise as a result of rabies, or something ghastly like that, is something about which we must be very careful. We should be very careful before we outlaw snaring, because it may catch something else or because we do
1084
not like it. We should not like killing anything but we do, and that is the way of the world.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I shall not detain your Lordships for more than half a moment, because most of the points have been made. But I should like to support my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas. Nobody likes snaring, because it is snaring. But, at the moment, it is an essential way of doing something in a practical manlier on large parts of hill country. My noble friend said that if you can find other ways of doing something, without needing three extra men, well and good. But if you abolish snaring in these areas there is one point which must be thought about. The farmers will not want to see a great increase in vermin. They will use poison even more than they do now. There is great danger of poisoning many more animals than you intend to kill. The indiscriminate abolishing of the snare, before there are satisfactory ways of killing vermin, will lead to illegal and greater use of poisons.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord corrected himself. That is the very point that I was going to raise. Poisoning is illegal and, speaking as a farmer, I deplore the noble Lord's suggestion that a farmer would break the law on the scale he is suggesting.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: A short time ago my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas said that at one time he exported a lot of live foxes to hunting countries. Surely he did not snare those foxes? They would be in no condition for hunting. I should not like to hunt them. So how did he get those foxes? Presumably he dug them out. Why can he not do that now? Some noble Lords also said that foxes are bad for forestry. That is complete and utter nonsense. The Forestry Commission like foxes because they kill the small mice and the rabbits which eat the young trees. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said that the fox is a very cruel animal. A fox can eat only by killing. But we do not have to eat the fox. I do not think that that argument is valid.
Earl Peel: I listened with interest to the arguments on both sides and I share the sympathies of those who have expressed concern about snaring. However, I support most fervently those who believe that snaring is a most important part of controlling the fox. We have talked about conservation and about the decrease in this country of many animals, birds and mammals. The fox is not on the decrease; it is very much on the increase.
If I may confine my remarks mainly to my own area which is the upland area of the North of England, this increase has been brought about by two major factors: by the very substantial reduction in the number of keepers and by the very substantial increase in the large forestry blocks which are to be seen in this part of the world.
If I may refer to Lord Melchett's remarks about fur skins, I fail to see what this has got to do with the argument. We are talking about keeping down a pest for agricultural purposes, for livestock purposes, or whatever. I do not see that the motives behind killing the fox are relevant to that part of the discussion.

1085
To take the matter a stage further, I believe that a very fine balance exists in the uplands and that the fox is included in that balance. As noble Lords know, most of upland Britain is utilised for two purposes: agriculture and grouse shooting. I make no bones about mentioning that subject, contentious though it may be. The combination of these two factors has for many years managed to maintain an indigenous population and the heather-clad rolling hills which we all enjoy so much, for whatever reason, and which have become such a major feature of this particular type of environment. However, when shooting interests have waned—and for various reasons they have waned—my experience has been that very often the agricultural pressure increases, to the detriment of the aesthetic aspects of the uplands. Then, inevitably, one finds what might be described as a monocultural environment. This I believe is detrimental to every aspect that we are looking at.
Farming is a vital characteristic of the uplands. It retains a population which otherwise would go. I think everyone agrees that that would be a very great shame. Farming is under continual financial pressure. Margins are dropping. Increased subsidies are vital in order to maintain upland farming. So this vital balance which exists is a crucial part of maintaining what we see at the moment.
One might well ask how the fox fits into this. If the shooting pressures go, we see an increase in the agricultural pressures which often tend to result in this monoculture. In Scotland we have seen the effects of the louping-ill and the tick. This is where there is a direct correlation. The louping-ill and the tick have had very serious effects on grouse. The result has been that agriculture in itself has failed to keep back the increase in forestry. Very substantial tracts of land which up to now have managed to retain, through the combination of grouse shooting and sheep farming, a viable upland environment are being wiped out.
I can see a correlation in my part of the world if the fox is allowed to become a major attacker of game birds. It is a major attacker already, but at the moment we have the snare. As one noble Lord said earlier, if an alternative method could be found to take the place of the snare I should welcome it, but to my knowledge it does not exist. If the fox is allowed to take over, the same situation will arise. Hill farming will not necessarily be able to stand up against the increase in forestry. Vast areas will go, affecting not only the environment but also tourism in this particular part of the world.
I think I have said enough. I am very conscious of the fact that the Government wish to deal with other amendments. However, I must add that I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton who mentioned poisons. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about poisons. Certain poisons at the moment can be taken. Cymag is one; it is a vital means of controlling foxes. I am quite certain that illegal poisons which unfortunately can still be obtained—there is no doubt about it—would be used in much greater numbers. I am sure noble Lords agree that this would be a very great shame.
Finally, may I refer to a passage from the winding-up speech at Second Reading of my noble friend Lord
1086
Avon. Referring to the Bill, he said that it is primarily a conservation, not a protection, Bill. Excessive protection of the fox would, in my opinion, in no way enhance conservation.
5.58 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I have a certain amount of hesitation in involving myself in the debate. Whatever one says, one is bound to incur the odium of at least half the Committee. However, that will not be an unfamiliar posture. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a very persuasive speech on the amendment. The amendment would have the effect of banning the use of snares without a licence. One has to balance, as the Committee have balanced, on the one hand the natural human sensibilities which everyone has over catching or killing any animal and, on the other, the need for adequate and proper pest control.
Snaring is, and always has been, an emotive topic. I can understand that. Having seen the terror of an animal caught in a snare, no one, by their nature, would wish such a device to be used. Having said that, one ought to emphasise that in fact snaring can be humane. A well-made snare, expertly set and free-running can cause death within seconds. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that it was only the profiteers, the profit-makers, who use this method. I think he described them as a dreadful specimen of humanity. I do not know whether in that engaging, all-embracing term he included my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas and several other noble Lords who said that they have used this method. The noble Lord was not quite fair over that, because it is a method which is used by people other than fur gatherers and fur sellers. It is even used by the Ministry of Agriculture for catching badgers and for tuberculosis research, a point which I know interests the noble Lord.
Of course, one forgets that snares can be used not to kill but to catch. It is possible to catch a badger and to use that animal for research purposes without killing it, provided that the snare properly set and that it is regularly inspected. indeed, in some cases it can be even more humane than trapping because if you get an animal in a cage it can become so frustrated that it goes round and round the cage and damages itself in the process. When it is used as an instantaneous instrument, even if death is not instantaneous, provided the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture is followed and the snare is properly set and inspected regularly, suffering need not be prolonged and it might be much less than that caused by a lingering death brought about by many other causes, such as disease or poor shooting.
Snaring can be selective. I am advised that a snare which is set on a fox run with a noose fixed about nine inches above the ground would be most unlikely to catch any badger which used that run. Its head would be carried low and it would tend to knock the snare up. To catch a badger, the noose would have to be larger, with the bottom of it almost resting on the ground. I accept of course that it is not always certain that a snare set for a fox would never catch a badger or anything else, but it is possible to reduce the chance to a minimum by skilful sighting and setting, and if in fact a badger were caught as a result of trying to catch something else, the person concerned would be guilty of an offence. Everything depends upon the

1087
skill and the care taken by the operator and I realise that some people are better at this than others.
If these two amendments were accepted it would mean that snaring could only be carried out under licence, and I do not believe that this is the best way of dealing with the problem. One of the reasons, and probably the most obvious reason, is that snares are cheap and can be made at home, and if such a ban is imposed snares will be made illegally and they will be set illegally. They are widely used and are necessary for farmers, gamekeepers and forestry workers, and illegal setting would be very difficult to control. The constraint of having to acquire a licence to snare, as my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said, would undoubtedly encourage the use of more dangerous alternatives, the most obvious being the widespread misuse of toxic chemicals and spring traps. That must be avoided.
I think my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas put it most succinctly when he said that this is not a straightforward problem. If there were a suitable and an adequate alternative, then it would be possible to say that we will do away with the snare; but as he and many other noble Lords have pointed out, there are occasions when the snare is the only proper and reasonable method to be used. I would only remind your Lordships that there are other people who have said—indeed, I think the Nature Conservancy Council said it—that there are occasions when the snare, used reasonably, can contribute to conservation in the control of pests, such as the rabbit. I think the problem of unskilled and careless operators will be better solved by education rather than by legislating against them.
I know that this will not be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I doubt whether it will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. What I ask of both noble Lords is to be generous enough to concede that while, quite rightly, they hold their views on this subject very strongly, there arc nevertheless restraints in the nature of pest control which would make the use of these undesirable instruments, as they are, nevertheless desirable on certain occasions.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I should like to reply briefly to some of the points which have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that he did not see what relevance my statistics on the huge increases in the snaring of foxes had to the debate on whether snares should be banned or not. I tried to make the point clear and I will briefly repeat it. This huge increase in snaring has this impact on the debate today, that inevitably this has led to a large number of snares being set by inexpert people, and inevitably a large number of animals which were not intended to be caught in the snares, have been caught, often with appallingly cruel consequences resulting in long cruel, agonising deaths. The animals included badgers, otters, domestic animals, deer caught by the leg and so on.
The noble Earl the Minister suggested that a snare set well for a fox would not catch a badger. All I can say to him is that the experts who have advised him have never watched a badger stop and sniff, because on occasions it holds its head very high indeed, quite high
1088
enough to be caught even by a well set snare for a fox. But the basis of my argument and the reason why I believe that the Committee should take a decision in favour of these amendments is that in the last four or five years there has been a massive increase in the use of snares.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said this did not matter because there were plenty of foxes; but the research workers at Oxford University who compiled these statistics said that in their own area of Oxfordshire, farmland fox home ranges averaged 234 hectares, each occupied by two or three adults. A population at that density could only just sustain the mortality of 1·7 foxes per square kilometre inflicted by farmers each year. So any further increase in hunting pressure due to the efforts of a pelt hunter could easily precipitate a decline in local numbers.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe the sale of fox pelts has fallen very rapidly in the last 12 months; they have gone out of fashion.
Lord Melchett: So far as I know, there is no evidence for that. The report from which I am quoting was published on 1st January 1981, and the figures contained in it go up to last year, and show quite the contrary trend.
A number of noble Lords have spoken of the damage done by foxes in a number of ways, and in response and in an endeavour to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is worried about the amendments, I should like to quote a letter from the infestation control branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. First, they say that the estimated damage to crops by foxes is nil, and I do not think that point was seriously raised. They go on to say that there is no objective estimate of damage to poultry. It is thought to be small because so few free range poultry are kept these days, but clearly such damage is a grievance to owners. That seems to me to be exactly the sort of localised problem which the licensing system is designed to deal with.
The letter from the Ministry of Agriculture goes on to say that it is estimated that the loss of lambs to foxes does not constitute a loss of economic significance to the farming community nationally, the losses have a much greater impact on individual farmers. Again, that is exactly the sort of problem which the licensing procedures in this Bill are designed to deal with. The letter points to a mass survey of farmers' estimates of Iamb loss in three predominantly sheep-rearing counties in mid-Wales, and I take it that was the sort of area that the noble Baroness was referring to in particular. In the survey the figure is given of a 0.5 per cent., loss of lambs to foxes. That was asking farmers themselves what happened. Again, of course, there will be individual farms where there are particular problems, exactly the sort of problem which the licensing procedures in this Bill are designed to deal with.
If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave this away, by himself referring to the use by MAFF officials of snares. That is done under licence and has no relevance to this amendment. This does not ban the use of snares under licence.
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, of course he has got the wrong end of the stick, which is unusual for him. I was not saying that it would be altered under this Bill, because he is quite right in saying that it could be done under licence. What I was trying to point out was that there are occasions when one can use a snare for the purposes of capturing an animal without necessarily intending to kill it.
Lord Melchett: I would not deny that, although I understand that MAFF themselves have adopted the use of a live trap, which is a far better system for catching animals if you want to keep them alive.
Somebody doing some research on otters in Scotland had the following to say about the problem of otters being caught in snares:
"Otters, like cats and badgers, are very strong and agile creatures, and when they are snared they do not die quickly or easily. Indeed they are rarely killed by a snare and are usually caught round the belly. They have to be hit over the head repeatedly with a stick to be killed. It has been known for otters caught by a limb to bite the limb off in order to free themselves."
It is that sort of despicable practice that we aim to prevent in this amendment. A number of noble Lords have said, "Well, show us an adequate alternative and we will agree with you". That is exactly the same argument that was used against the abolition of gin traps in this country. We left that too late, and I sincerely hope we shall not leave the abolition of snaring too late.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gridley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beswick, L.

Hertford, M.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Collison, L.

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

Craigavon, V.

David, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

de Clifford, L.

Maelor, L.

De La Warr, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Diamond, L.

Melchett, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milverton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Nathan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Garner, L.

Peart, L.

George-Brown, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Glenamara, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Gregson, L.

Ridley, V.

1090

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rochester, L.

Underhill, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wade, L.

Seear, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Walston, L.

Shannon, E.

Whaddon, L.

Shepherd, L.

White, B.

Shinwell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stone, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Armstrong, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Atholl, D.

Loudoun, C.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Balerno, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barringlon, V.

Mansfield, E.

Bathurst, E.

Margadale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Marley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clinton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Congleton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Norfolk, D.

Crathorne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cromartie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Peel, E.

De Freyne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Digby, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Exeter, M.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Falkland, V.

St. Just, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gibson, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Gibson-Walt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Slim, V.

Glasgow, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Spens, L.

Gormanston, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thurso, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trumpington, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Tryon, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ullswater, V.

Killearn, L.

Vickers, B.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimberley, E.

Westbury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
6.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 12, line 11, leave out first (" mammal ") and insert (" animal ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 151, 178 and 179. These amendments all relate to the same small point, which is that Clause 11 is mainly intended to implement the European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Convention, Article 8 and Appendix 4, which use the words "live animals" and not "live mammals". The amendment that I am moving to substitute "live animal" for "live mammal" is simply to try to extend the range of statutory powers—for example, so as to avoid further primary legislation if the European Convention should be extended to additional types of animal. There may be nothing very important in this, and the Minister may well have considered whether this is a valid point or not. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I think that there are difficulties here. I quite see why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has put down this amendment. But, if one can use colloquial terms, "mammals" are what one might describe as furry animals and "animals" include birds and fish and other creeping objects. One of the effects of the noble Lord's amendment—and I know that he is a great humanitarian as regards, for instance, fox-hunting, badgers and, indeed, snares—is that, if it were to succeed, he would, in effect, ban much fishing, because the effect of the amendment might well be to prevent fishing with the use of live bait, live fish and, indeed, even maggots. I think that that is probably going rather further than the noble Lord expected and, therefore, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I think that it probably would be going rather further and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The next amendment is No. 150. I point out that if Amendment No. 150 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 151 and 152.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("any live mammal whatever ") and insert ("any tape recording or any live mammal whatsoever which is tethered or which is secured by braces or other similar apparatus or").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 150. The subsection concerned makes it an offence to use as a decoy any live mammal whatever which is blind, maimed or injured. The prohibition in Clause 5(1) in the case of birds uses different wording. It says:
"uses as a decoy … any tape recording or any live bird whatsoever which is tethered, or which is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances, or which is blind, maimed or injured".
I have put down the amendment to ask why the provision which applies to birds should not equally well be applied to mammals. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The justification for having a few reservations about this amendment is that we would not wish to see a general ban on the use of tape recordings as a decoy. I understand that there is the possibility that tape recordings could be a potentially effective tool in pest control. If the amendment were moved into the Bill it would lead inevitably to a demand for licences to employ the method. We would wish to avoid any unnecessary licences. But the use of any live animal which has been tethered or secured in some way as a decoy is, I think, reprehensible if, indeed, it is practised. So far I have not heard of any instances and I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to give any instances. However, I would not wish to oppose the amendment so far as the use of live mammals as decoys is concerned, and I would only ask my noble friend that if he has any particular examples perhaps he would care to produce them to me before the next stage of the Bill and we can see exactly what it is that he is getting at. I am still not absolutely certain myself what he is getting at with this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I would be very happy if my noble friend would consider just leaving out the tape recording reference which, in any case, probably ought to refer to a wire recording, and just consider tethering and securing by means of braces. I have no example. However, it seems to me that if it is suitable for birds it should be suitable for mammals. I simply leave the matter at that.
Baroness David: Our Amendment No. 52 does exactly what Lord Craigton's amendment would do if he deleted the reference to "any tape recording". I am afraid that at the moment I, too, have no examples.
Earl Ferrers: If I am not totally out of order in referring to the noble Baroness's amendment, I should like to say that when she moves it I was going to say that I had not any idea of what examples she might have in mind and I was hoping that she would be able to produce some. But, as, in fact, she is unable to produce any, I shall not make that remark when she comes to move her amendment! What I shall say is that, of course, I shall consider the matter but, without any obvious reasons for introducing the amendment, I cannot see why we should be tempted to agree it at the next stage. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is about to fulminate and I shall certainly listen to him and consider what he has to say.
Lord Melchett: The debate on Amendment No. 150 has really covered all the amendments, because they all deal with exactly the same point. I think that the argument in favour of introducing it would be twofold. First, the noble Earl was asked earlier whether he could think of any examples of things causing damage and he said "No, but something might come along in the future which this applied to". So, it seems to me that, even if none of us has come across this reprehensible practice—I think we all agree that it is a reprehensible practice—during our walks through the countryside, that is not a sufficient argument against ensuring that legislation makes it impossible that it should happen.

1093
The second argument—and I think that this is a good deal stronger—is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has pointed out, this is already banned as regards birds. I do not know very much about the interpretation of statutes, but it seems to me that if it is explicitly included in the birds part and excluded in the animals part, the inference that somebody reading the Act is likely to draw from that is that it is okay for mammals, even though it is not okay for birds. That would clearly be an absurdity and something that none of us would want. I cannot think of any good reason for not accepting Amendment No. 152. That seems to me to be the question that really needs answering.
Earl Ferrers: Of course we shall look at it again. I am bound to say that I thought that the second of the noble Lord's arguments, which he said was even the more forceful, was, in fact, infinitely less so. To say that you use something for birds and therefore you use it for animals, invites the obvious retort that birds are, different from animals—birds fly and animals do not—and certain restrictions which may be required to be applied to birds need not necessarily be required to apply to animals. However, I shall certainly look at it.
Lord Craigton: Perhaps my noble friend will also consider the bird wording, because it says, "any live mammal", not "any live bird".
Earl Ferrers: I shall look at that as well.
Lord Craigton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("which is blind, maimed or injured").
The noble Lord said: We all agree with the Bill as it stands, as far as it goes. We would certainly object to using as a decoy a live animal which is blind, maimed or injured. But my amendment seeks to outlaw the using of live mammals as decoys at all. The need is not very clear to me, but I am sure it might be explained where a live decoy is justified in the purpose of killing or taking any other animal. It is an underhand way of catching anything.
Noble Lords opposite are the great sportsmen of the nation; they believe in fair play, fair dealing, high moral standards and all the rest in relationships with each other, and sometimes in relationships with animals themselves. So I look to them to justify the use of a live animal, uninjured, not maimed and not blind, as a decoy for the purpose of capturing and killing some other animal. That really is the purpose of a decoy. I leave it at that. It is part of a general campaign in the course of this Bill to try to eliminate undesirable practices which come to light in our general consideration of conservation. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: With regard to this amendment, I think that the same stricture applies as applied to the
1094
previous ones; that, in fact, this would prevent some forms of fishing. It is difficult to say in exactly what cases it would be desirable to use live decoys. However, there are occasions when these are used in fishing. I will consider the noble Lord's point further because I am not wholly unsympathetic to the idea. I think that the amendment would effectively ban that.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not think that people use tethered mice to catch pike; I think that they only use pierced gudgeon, or something like that. I cannot think of any excuse for using a tethered or live animal as bait. In India in 1880 they tethered goats to shoot panthers, but I do not think we are talking about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is asking for support from this side from the sporting fraternity among us, I would tend to support him.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am absolutely certain that if anyone was to use a mammal as live bait it would be under his control and it would be an offence under the Cruelty to Animals Act. Equally, I am sure that it does not occur. I also believe that if my noble friend Lord Ferrers was to consult with the fishing community at large, he would find that on the whole there is a general distaste for the use of live bait of any kind. This he will be able to verify by reference to the representative voluntary bodies concerned with fishing and also by perusal of the fishing literature. On those grounds, I do not believe that he need fear the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Earl Ferrers: As I said, I shall certainly look at this again.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I did not catch what the noble Earl said.
Earl Ferrers: I said that in view of the remarks that have been made I would look at this again. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that, even though the fishing fraternity do not like or do not approve of the use of live bait, it is of course used.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thought for a moment that the noble Earl had accepted something. At least he is to look at my amendment again. We have to be content with small mercies in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("; or
(d) uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal—

(i) any bow or crossbow,

(ii) any automatic or semi-automatic weapon; or

(iii) any device for illuminating a target or sighting device for night shooting; or

(e) sets in position any of the following articles, being an article which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild mammal which comes into contact therewith, that is to say, any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substance.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154, in effect I should like to speak only to the second half of the amendment for reasons which I shall briefly

1095
explain, and I apologise for any confusion or inconvenience that that causes. First, in paragraph (d)(i) my amendment would seek to make the use of a bow or crossbow illegal. Amendment No. 155A has been tabled which would do that, and that seems to me to be the more straightforward way of approaching the problem. I hope to support that amendment when we reach it.
Paragraph (d) (ii) deals with automatic and semi-automatic weapons. We have had such long and extensive debates on that particular subject that, as someone who is extremely inexpert in the field of firearms, I do not wish to attempt to get involved in that. Therefore, it would seem sensible to leave that to the particular amendments which are aimed at automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and for me not to attempt an amendment on the subject.
Finally, paragraph (d)(iii) does not seem to me to be entirely apposite now, because following our debate on the possibility of making night-shooting illegal, we decided that that should not be allowed and I can see some good arguments for having devices which illuminate targets if people are to shoot in the dark. On welfare grounds, if for no other reason, animals are more likely to be killed cleanly than otherwise. Therefore, as a result of debates we have had since the Marshalled List was drawn up, paragraph (d) seems to be redundant.
However, I should like to refer to paragraph (e) and to treat this at this stage as a probing amendment which I hope will receive a favourable response from the Government so that either we or they can return to it on Report. As I made clear in interjecting in remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, made on a previous amendment, the present position on poisoning is that the, Protection of Animals Act 1911, which was amended. in 1927, applies to England and Wales. Section 8A of that Act prohibits the sale or giving away of poisoned seed or grain, except for bona fide agricultural use. Section 8B prohibits the placing of poisonous matter on any land or building. However, provided that reasonable precautions arc taken to prevent access by domestic animals and wild birds, the use of poison to destroy insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice and other small ground vermin is permitted.
The position in Scotland is similar but not exactly the same. There are two important differences. First, vermin is not qualified by the adjective "small", and although reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent access by domestic animals, this apparently does not extend to wild birds in the same way as it does in England and Wales. Incidentally, given our previous discussion, it is unclear whether foxes would qualify as vermin. As this has not been tested in the courts, although poisoned baits are often put out for foxes, this may well not be legal under Scottish law. I understand that the Lord Advocate gave an opinion in 1924 that they did, but that was not the main point of the case and, therefore, the matter still has to be tested in the courts, if anyone wishes to do so.
The Protection of Birds Acts 1954 and 1967 prohibit the use or setting in position of poison or stupefying substances with the intention of causing injury to any wild bird. The same section recognises the existence
1096
of the other legislation to which I have referred. Its wording disallows the defence of an accident, except where the defendant can show that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to wild birds. Stupefying baits may, of course, be used under licence to control species in the pest schedule, and that will of course remain the position under this Bill. So the use of poisoned baits to control wildlife at the moment is strictly controlled and we have a number of international obligations which reinforce our obligation to control to the use of poisons.
Clause 5 of the Bill continues the strict prohibition against the use of poisons to kill birds which were in the protection of Birds Act. However, the purpose of my amendment and the argument behind it is my concern that there is a potential conflict between this Bill and existing legislation, which may complicate the position and may even increase the use of poisons in the countryside, something which I think all of us would deplore.
Poisons are notoriously unselective in their operation and a poison bait can kill whatever comes into contact with it, whether it is a bird, a badger, a fox, or some other creature after a free meal, in particular domestic pets. Recent answers to Parliamentary Questions have shown that in 1980 over 100 confirmed cases of the deliberate misuse of poisons came to the attention of the authorities and to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in England and Wales, and those are undoubtedly the tip of a very large iceberg. The number of reported cases, each of which is already an offence, is increasing each year.
This problem has been highlighted in particular by the RSPB in their report Silent Death, where there is a quite appalling catalogue of the damage done to some of our rarest birds by poisons, and also to mammals and pets, does, and so on. Indeed, even examples of children who have picked up eggs, taken them home and cooked them and been saved from a quick and painful death in the nick of time. These things are extremely dangerous.
In Clause 11(2) certain methods of killing wild mammals listed in Schedule 6 are prohibited, and these prohibited methods include poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substances. This is reasonable so far as it goes, but anybody reading this clause who is unaware of the provisions of Clause 5, which is quite likely because on the whole one would turn to Clause 11 to look at restrictions on methods of killing, or even more likely is unaware of the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 and 1912, may believe erroneously that it is legitimate for them to use poison against those wild animals not listed in Schedule 6.
I assume that Clause 11(4) is intended to make clear that that is not the case, but it does not seem to me that that clause achieves that purpose. I, for one, from reading the clause, did not understand that to be so. There is widespread agreement—and in particular the Minister, Mr. Monro, in another place reinforced this—that we should do all we possibly can to stamp out the illegal use of poisons in the countryside. In reading what the Minister said about this in that particular debate, I was delighted where he took a very firm and welcome line to all of us concerned about this matter.
My amendment clearly goes further than would be

1097
desirable because it would exclude the use of poisons against small ground vermin, for example rats and mice, and that would need to be seen to if an amendment of this sort were to be included in the Bill, unless that were to be got over by the use of the licensing procedure. But I think that would be going too far in the licensing. However, I think it important that licensing procedures are used much more strictly to control the use of poisons and in particular strychnine, of which there is clearly a far larger amount in circulation than is needed to control moles, which is the only legitimate use.
In 1976, 26½ lbs. was issued in Wales alone. That was a good deal more than in the two subsequent years, when about 14 lbs. was issued. Nevertheless, it seems to me far more than could possibly be needed for legitimate uses. No doubt that is why we find badgers, buzzards, red kites, and many other animals and birds being killed by the use of poisoned bait.
An amendment along these lines, with the sort of exception I have mentioned, would clarify what I hope I have demonstrated is a pretty confused situation with different prohibitions existing in different Acts, some of them dating hack to the early 1900s. It would not represent a major change from the existing position because, despite the opinions in some quarters, it is illegal to set poisons or poisonous baits to kill wild birds and most mammals. I believe that that should be made absolutely clear because there is a quite appalling catalogue of the misuse of poisons in the countryside at the moment, and I hope an amendment along these lines would prove acceptable to the Government.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: This is really an omnibus amendment, and I do not intend to reply to everything that the noble Lord has spoken about. I agree with him when he says that certain poisons are sometimes over-used, and wrongly used. I would remind him—I think he is aware of it—that the use of strychnine is against the law except, as he rightly said, for the purpose of dealing with moles. I should not like your Lordships' Committee to say that all poisons could not be used. There is one particular poison that is cymag, which, if it is used properly, can be very sensibly used to get rid of vermin. I am not saying that it should be put indiscriminately down badger holes to control foxes.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, spoke on an earlier amendment, and I come from the same sort of area—an area where we have no hunt and have to dispose of large numbers of foxes by various means. There are occasions when the sensible use of cymag in a single hole is perhaps not the most cruel way of disposing of a fox which is worrying sheep. I would hope that this amendment would not in itself be accepted. In fact the noble Lord himself did not expect it to he. In the same way, the use of warfarin for grey squirrels is another thing which has to be watched, but which I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to see removed. I will not speak any longer. I merely wish to put a balance in this debate for your Lordships' convenience.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: While agreeing with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said about the undesirability of poisoning practically any animal—and particularly it is true that there is a misuse of strychnine for moles—I should like to point out that in our part of Scotland, and in Scotland as a whole, the use of poison carefully placed in a mole run is now practically the only method of mole control that we have. We cannot get people to trap them any more; that has gone. This is an important agricultural process. I do not know whether better control of the issue of the poison can be devised, but that it is essential for the control of moles there is no doubt whatsoever under present circumstances.
6.48 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for saying that he would not press this amendment. Had he indicated otherwise, I would be bound to say that in the nature of it, as it is, it would be unacceptable. I am also grateful to him for highlighting, the problem as he has, because it is a real one. He said that there was a confused situation with regard to the use of poison. I would not call it confused so much as intricate. In fact, all poisons which are used in pest control are covered by legislation; but the legislation is, I agree with him, piecemeal and complicated. It would probably he imprudent and indeed undesirable for me to go into its ramifications here.
He is quite right to draw attention to the fact that when poisons are misused—and they are on occasions misused—they can cause a great deal of damage, and a great deal of damage to animals and indeed birds which were not the subject of the use in the first place. The use of poisonous substances and stupefying agents is controlled, and I suppose that of those two things strychnine and alphachloralose are the best examples. They are in fact covered by Section 11, as amended, of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and by regulations made in 1963, and the Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962 also covered the point. But this last Act makes it unlawful to use strychnine to kill any mammal except moles, and the fact is that strychnine is by far the most effective method of controlling moles, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said. Were there any equally efficient and less dangerous alternative which met the criteria of being humane and of low risk to other wild life and to the operators' safety, we should be happy to see the use of strychnine abandoned, but at the moment it does not seem that there is that alternative.
A great deal of research has been done by scientists in the past decade but they have had little success so far in finding an acceptable alternative. The use of strychnine and pure alphachloralose is strictly controlled and the problem with those two substances would appear to be not the use of them but the misuse or abuse of them. We are at present looking at ways of tightening up the use of strychnine, even by putting a colouring agent in it so that if an animal or bird is killed it may be possible to determine from the colour of its flesh whether it was killed by strychnine sold under permit. We are conscious of the danger which can be caused by these particular substances, and I take note

1099
of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. My initial feeling is that this Bill would probably not be the right vehicle into which to put all the regulations in regard to poisons, but I shall certainly see if anything can be done and, if so, what.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I was particularly heartened to hear his remarks about Government moves to tighten up on the use of strychnine. It seems that this problem has reached such serious proportions that unless we can find some way of tightening up on the illegal use of strychnine and these other substances, we shall have to take drastic action to curb their use, including banning them, and that would clearly be objected to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and others. Nevertheless, the Minister in another place, at column 163 of Hansard on 10th November, described the illegal use of poisons as one of the biggest threats facing some of our rarest birds. He went on to say that it was extremely difficult to detect all such offences because they occurred in remote areas of the countryside and it could be many days, if ever, before the stricken bird was detected.
What the noble Earl said about colouring strychnine would clearly be of assistance, but the fact that there is so much legislation on this subject seems to reinforce the case for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which we discussed last week and which I hope is being seriously considered by the Government, for passing some liability to landowners for the illegal placing of poisons on their land. As I said at the time, that seemed to me to be a modest amendment. Having heard what the noble Earl said and having considered this particular point, that seems to be the very least we need to do.
Earl Ferrers: I would add in confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that I am acutely conscious of the fact that it is the misuse and abuse, and not the use, of the poison substances that is doing the damage. I am also acutely conscious of the fact that if there are those who abuse it, they will, possibly in the long run, deter proper use of the product, and that of course would have deleterious effects such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("; or
(d) uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild animal any air weapon").
The noble Lord said: I return to the subject of the air gun. This matter was raised earlier in relation to birds, when the Minister said that consideration would be given to including an air weapon in the list of prohibited ways of killing certain animals. I had hoped to see the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, include the catapult this time, as he did for birds, and I shall, with permission, link the two for the moment. A feature article appeared in my local paper, the Surrey Mirror,
1100
last Friday drawing attention to the importation into this country from the United States of what is called a slingshot. This is a high-powered weapon with a range of 225 yards: the instructions and guidance which come with the weapon make it clear that it is a hunting weapon, and the makers give hunting tips:
"Be a good sportsman … Hunt only game animals and only in season … Never take over the legal limit … Always secure permission before hunting on private property … Slingshot shooting is a real challenge which you will master, but the sport also expects responsible action by all who are part of it".
Then they show a rabbit or hare, a bird which could be a pigeon or dove, another animal which could be a rat, another which could be a sparrow or a songbird, a squirrel, an otter and and a snake. That is the slingshot. It is £2·50, on sale to anybody of whatever age who likes to walk in and buy it. I am not a bit surprised that the leading article in the Surrey Mirror warns all parents locally to look carefully before they allow their children to buy this slingshot.
This may persuade the Minister to look at the air gun in relation to mammals and the catapult or slingshot in relation to mammals, as he undertook to do in connection with birds. I think I have said enough to impress the Minister with the seriousness of the air gun and the slingshot as methods of killing both birds and mammals. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to look at the same time at Amendment No. 165, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It refers to the air gun, air rifle and air pistol and would insert a provision in another part of the Bill. However, as the Government are looking at the matter with regard to birds, if we could have an assurance in relation to my amendment, that might help to speed up our proceedings.
Lord Melchett: I hope the Government will look at this at this point in the Bill, which they promised to do when we discussed the subject on an earlier amendment. The week-end after that debate, I heard from somebody who had visited a cave with bats in it; the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I am returning to that subject again, but I promise to do so only briefly. There were about 350 live bats in the cave and 80 to 90 dead ones lying on the ground, some of which had been crushed by stones but the majority of which had clearly been shot with air guns. That is the sort of sport which we hope will be prohibited if we get the ban on air guns which I think is desired by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee.
There is another point which I wish to put on the record so that when the Government are considering the matter they can take it into account. I am looking at a leaflet produced on predator control by the working party to which I referred earlier and which is representative of a great number of organisations, including the British Field Sports Society, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Masters of Foxhounds' Association and Masters of Otterhounds' Association, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was also a member representing the Mammal Society and will know about this better than I do. I have looked at the shooting recommendations in their booklet because, when the noble Earl, Lord

1101
Avon, agreed to look at this matter, I think I heard him say—I have not had an opportunity to read his speech in Hansard—that it might be necessary to allow the use of air guns for predator control. However, this booklet says clearly, and this was agreed by all the different bodies, including the nature conservation organisations whose representatives were on the committee:
"Air weapons are not considered to be suitable for use in predator control".
I hope the Government will take that into account when they are considering this point, which they have undertaken to do.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is always a fund of information and instruction, and I was surprised to hear of some of the things they get up to in Surrey. As my noble friend Lord Avon has given a commitment to consider a similar amendment in regard to birds, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall certainly give consideration to this amendment in regard to animals.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 155A:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert —
("; or
(d) uses for the purposes of killing or taking any wild mammal any bow or crossbow.").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 155A and 162A. The purpose of these amendments is to ban bows and crossbows. I can see no reason whatsoever for using bows or crossbows. In every way a gun does a better job; added to which it is necessary to have a licence to possess a gun, which gives some control of its use. But no licence is required for bows or crossbows. Modern crossbows are very dangerous and powerful. They can easily kill an animal as big as a deer; and there have been many recorded examples of misuse of bows and crossbows, including damage and death to livestock, particularly sheep. If your Lordships accept this amendment—I had the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was certainly going to support me, and I believe that, perhaps, not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might support me—I feel sure that, apart from the points I have already made, it would give greater protection to wildlife, as does the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Caithness on the control of air guns. I beg to move.
The Duke of Atholl: I should very much like to support this amendment. I can see no reason why bows or crossbows should be allowed for killing any mammal, and I would have thought that this was an amendment which the Government could well accept.
Baroness David: I, too, should like to support this amendment.
Lord Dulverton: I should like to rise momentarily to support my noble friend's amendment. On this occasion I speak on behalf of the British Deer Society, who have experience of the most fearful occasions of deer being maimed—
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt my noble friend, I am sure he will be expressing the views of the British Deer Society but he does not speak for anyone other than himself.
Lord Duherton: I beg to support my noble friend.
Earl Ferrers:I really did not mean to truncate my noble friend too quickly, and I apologise if I did. All I would say is that I should like to support the amendment, too, but I cannot actually accept it because I think it may not be technically correct. But on the understanding that I will look at it and put down an amendment which will be correctly acceptable, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to thank my noble friend very much for that statement. I feel it must have something to do with the fact that my noble friend the Chief Whip is present, about to announce a pleasurable experience for us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham:I think this is probably a suitable moment at which to adjourn for dinner, if noble Lords on the other side will agree; and after we have completed the intervening business, perhaps we should resume the Committee stage of this Bill at eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Bill of Rights Bill [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Lord Wade: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It seems a long time since I first embarked on this subject. As to the Bill itself, if today this House approves the Third Reading, I calculate that I shall have gained a Second Reading in this House four times and a Third Reading twice; and in due course, if it finds its way to another place, it will twice have been sent to the Commons. I hope that that is an augury for the future. I am certainly grateful for the patience of all those noble Lords who have taken part, whether for or against the Bill.
Since the Report stage of the Bill, which was only a week ago, I have had the opportunity to read the report of the Lords Select Committee—that is, the 71st Report, 1980—on the proposed accession of the European Communities to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the outcome of that report is more or less what I had anticipated. Certainly the committee deserves to be thanked for its work. It recommends that the report be debated, but it points out certain technical and other difficulties in accession (if I may call it so) en bloc. In my view the report

1103
strengthens the case for the Bill which is before your Lordships. It certainly does not detract from the arguments which have been put forward for incorporation, as suggested in my Bill.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to avoid repetition, but for the benefit of those who may not have had the opportunity to read Hansard I should like to mention two basic issues—and I do so for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments. The first question is as to whether, in our present stage of constitutional development and in the complex society in which we now live, we ought to move towards greater protection for basic liberties and rights. This can conveniently be referred to as a Bill of Rights, hence the Title of the Bill now before us. Your Lordships will be aware that the Select Committee set up by this House to study my Bill decided that if a move towards a Bill of Rights was desirable then the most satisfactory way forward would be to use, or to make use of, the articles of the European Convention which have been signed and ratified. So that is the first basic issue. It is so well known to some of your Lordships that I apologise for repeating it, but I think it needed stating.
The second basic issue is this. Should the articles of the convention and protocols that the United Kingdom ratifies be treated as part of the law of our land and not merely as treaty obligations? There are many people who still do not understand this. If they feel that they are suffering in some way for some action that appears to be in conflict with an article of the European Convention, or if in the process of court proceedings they raise an article of the convention, they expect it to be a matter which the judge of whatever court it may be can properly regard as if it were the law. But what is contained in a treaty is not the law of the land. That was pointed out very clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the Second Reading debate. It is not necessary for me to repeat it; but the object of my Bill is to rectify what some of us regard as an anomaly. Those are the two basic issues as I see the matter.
I should like to turn for a few moments to Article 60 of the convention, which is also contained in the definition clause in my Bill. I refer to it for this reason. In discussions that take place among the general public about standardisation between this country and European countries, I sometimes find it alleged that the original position (in standards, for example) which prevailed in this country earlier is better than at the present day. I am not going to enter into that controversy; I am not going to say whether those arguments are sound or not sound. What I wish to say now is that there is no necessity tonight to enter into that controversy; it is clearly stated in Article 60—and it was deliberately included in this Bill—that nothing in the convention shall be construed as limiting the rights or freedoms ensured under the existing law; so we are not limiting existing law.
Returning to the basic issues—and here I explain why I have made special mention of them—I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in the debate on Second Reading. In effect, he said that a Bill ought to receive due consideration in the Commons if it has been passed through this House, and especially if it has been passed twice
1104
through this House. It is not for me to say what another place should do, but I should like to add this observation. If we are to have a single Chamber, if the House of Lords is to be abolished and no other Chamber put in its place, I would not expect those who support that view to be particularly interested in a Bill that has gone through this House even though it has been approved several times. But if there are those—and certainly I am one of them—who believe in the value of a Second Chamber, the position is different. I believe that the parliamentary system can only function satisfactorily if both Houses have an opportunity of debating basic issues. I take the view that this is such a case. I cannot do more than express a hope, but I hope that the point will be kept in mind in another place.
My Lords, I know that it is customary on an occasion such as this, when one has reached the Third Reading, for the sponsor of the Bill to express appropriate thanks at the end of the debate; but I should like to slip in three expressions of thanks now before I sit down. First, I should like to say that I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, because throughout he has constantly disagreed with me on certain aspects; and the fact that he has done so has helped to make for a more balanced debate. Secondly, I should like to acknowledge—and I hope that I am using just the right words—the courteous neutrality of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Thirdly, I must express my gratitude for the contributions from the Cross-Benches including, in particular, the three noble and learned Law Lords who made some very important contributions to the debate and who were extremely encouraging to me. Having said that, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to pass the necessary Motion to give this Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Wade.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for his very kind words, and also to offer him warm congratulations on the way he has piloted this Bill and the earlier ones through this House and on the enthusiasm and constant determination that he has shown in this cause. Without entering into the details of the merit of the Bill tonight, there is one thing that I would say about its possible passage through the other place—and, who knows, the other place deciding to pass the Bill?—and that is this. It will be an occasion for at least some regret that there would then be no further cause for us to continue the "club" which we have formed, which has continued for these past few years and which has been a very enjoyable one.
Lord Wade: My Lords, if I may interrupt for a moment, I should be very surprised if there were no amendments.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we shall see. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I do not want now to go into the detailed merits or otherwise of the Bill, but I should like to take up one matter arising from what he said tonight about the possible future parlia

1105
mentary discussions on the Bill. First of all, your Lordships know and appreciate the reasons why we from this Dispatch Box—and I do not speak for my party generally because there are different views held—have not been able to support the Bill although we have also not felt disposed to seek to obstruct its passage through the House. As we have seen previously, the Bill has itself drawn support and opposition from the three parties—and indeed the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, too, have been divided on the Bill.
The matter it deals with, the whole matter of human rights, is clearly of continuing and crucial importance. We have all been united in upholding the fundamental importance of protecting and developing human rights. What has divided us is not ends but means. We have been divided about the best means, the best machinery, to achieve the ends which I believe we all seek. This is why there are differing views about incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into our law; why there have been differing views about the difficulties, as some would see them, which it would give rise to in our courts if it were incorporated, and why there have been differing views about whether or not the individual would benefit more from incorporation than under our present system. At the very least, continuing discussion of these matters is part of the responsibility of Parliament; and surely only good—certainly no harm—would he done by sending this Bill to another place. There would then be an opportunity for further productive examination of the great issues which arise from it—the arguments for and against.
My own party—like others—has been in the forefront of the battle to set up effective machinery to deal with human rights matters. We have strongly supported and welcomed the extension of the right to petition individually, and our view certainly has not changed about the importance and great value of the convention itself. It is right that these matters should receive full consideration. This is what I would be inclined to say in response to the point introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about future parliamentary discussion: if in another place it was decided to give further consideration to these matters, that certainly would not be unwelcome to us on this Bench. We would in those circumstances look forward to further progress in seeking the best means to advance the cause of human rights which all of us seek.
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as your Lordships know, I have indicated on earlier occasions that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is very strongly in favour of the promotion of human rights; but as the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has pointed out, there are differences as to the way in which that can best be achieved in present circumstances. The Government's view is that the best way forward in this situation is, if possible, to attain a fairly large measure of agreement. That would be a matter which would be expected to be attained under the machinery of, first of all, talks between the major interests concerned, and then the promotion of a measure with detailed consideration
1106
behind it.
The Government's view is that the discussion which has taken place here has been extremely useful. As I said in the Second Reading debate, it is very remarkable how much new can be said after there have been so many debates on the same subject. I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to thank him for what he said about my "courteous neutrality". I believe that he has done a great service to the cause of human rights by what he has done in this House. It is not appropriate for me to say what will happen in another place or to discuss the procedures in another place. The present anticipation is that the amount of business with which another place is presently charged is so pressing, so great, that it is unlikely that much further progress can be made in this particular subject in this Session. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke of this at Second Reading and the judge's dream. I was thinking afterwards that perhaps the words of John Bunyan might be appropriate:
"I awoke and, behold, it was a dream".
7.25 p.m.
Lord Wade: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships. I will of course study what the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate have said. I have the impression, from comparing remarks that were made a year ago and those made today, that although perhaps cautious, there is indicated some movement in the course of the year. To that extent I am gratified by what has been said.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is certainly in favour of continuing discussion, and I gather that he would be in favour of continuing discission in another place. I have already observed that I must not say what ought to happen in another place, but when I refer to basic issues what I have in mind in a two-Chamber Parliament is this: the Second Reading in both Chambers provides the best opportunity for debating the basic issues. From that there follows a Committee stage and possible amendments.
When I said that I should be surprised if there were no amendments, I had in mind that if it received the discussion that I should like in another place I should not be surprised if someone thought of some amendment to send back to this House so our task would not be finally completed.
In view of the time and the many discussions that we have already had, your Lordships would not wish me to enter further into some of the underlying problems. I express my gratitude to all those who have spoken and I hope that your Lordships will see fit to agree that this Bill be read a third time.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Fisheries Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December

1107
be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order proposes to make changes in the fisheries law of Northern Ireland affecting punishments for offences, the regulation of sea-fishing and the culture of shell-fish.
There are two fishery codes in Northern Ireland—the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, which, in parallel with similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, applies to the fisheries in the basin of the River Foyle, and the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which applies to other inland fisheries and to fishing for sea-fish.
Article 3 and Schedule 1 alter the maximum punishments which may be imposed for offences under the Acts of 1952 and 1966 and also the punishments for offences under two other Acts—namely, the Diseases of Fish Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and the Fish Industry Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. In the more serious cases, such as the unlawful capture or sale of salmon or trout, the offences have been made indictable an an alternative to the present procedures whereby offences can be prosecuted only before a court of summary jurisdiction.
There is concern about the threat to salmon stocks, especially in the Foyle area, by poachers and illegal dealers with ready outlets in hotels and restaurants. The severity of the proposed punishments reflect this concern. The activities of poachers in the Foyle area have had a serious effect on the stocks of salmon trying to make their way to the spawning grounds. In fixing the new maximum punishments, the order seeks to standardise them, so far as is possible, between the Foyle area and the rest of Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Article 4 extends the scope of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, enabling the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland to regulate the records to be kept and returns of sales and catches to be made by sea-fishermen and fish-salesmen; namely, those who auction or deal in fish at the point of landing, including those selling fish by contract. The information provided by these records and returns will be of considerable importance if conservation measures are to be successful. Returns are at present made on a voluntary basis, but there is little or nothing that the department could do if, say, a fish salesman were to refuse to make returns.
The provisions contained in Article 5, which give the Department of Agriculture powers of inquiry and examination in relation to all licensed fish farms, are mainly concerned with finding a more suitable position in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 for provisions formerly in section 137(3) of that Act. However, the powers in that section were in respect only of shellfish fisheries. The new provision will extend to freshwater fish farms and will enable authorised officers to enter and examine all things used in the running of a fish farm to determine whether the licensees are complying with licensed conditions. The maintenance of strict hygienic conditions in these establishments is of the greatest importance, if they are not to become breeding grounds for disease. In fact, the standard of hygiene in existing fish farms is at present very high, and this is of great importance in securing the export
1108
of their produce. The article aims to ensure that that remains the condition.
Articles 6 and 7 are concerned with the regulation of sea-fisheries. They re-enact existing legislation in simplified form, and in particular remove a restriction under which prohibitions on the taking of particular species of fish are limited in duration to one year at a time. That has given rise to difficulty, because it has meant that the problem caused by the erosion of fish stocks to a critical level has, up to now, had to be dealt with piecemeal. In future the period of a prohibition will be fixed by the regulations themselves, and this will make the Government's strategy clearer to the fishermen concerned.
Article 8 and Schedule 2 replace existing sections of the Act of 1966 relating to oyster bed licences and oyster fishery orders (which to some extent overlapped) with a single set of provisions for the granting of shell-fish fishery licences. The new provisions to a large extent re-enact the substance of the existing ones, but they overcome a difficulty which has been encountered with regard to the grant of licences in respect of Crown foreshore.
Article 9 extends the powers of an authorised sea-fishery officer so as to enable him to require the cooperation of the crew of a fishing boat which he boards in the course of his duties.
Although the amendments made by the order are comparatively minor, they will make useful improvements in the legislation affected. I commend the order to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
7.33 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the draft amendment order. Though he said that the amendments made by the order are minor, they are far-reaching in many respects, and I think that in general they are welcomed within the fishing industry. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, upon the extension of his ministerial duties in the Northern Ireland Office. In addition to his Department of Education brief, he now has direct responsibility for the Department of Agriculture, which embraces the fisheries that we are discussing this evening. I know that the noble Lord will find the Northern Ireland farming community, as well as those engaged in fishing, most hardworking and energetic people. I am sure that he will have the good will of both the farming and fishing industries, and he certainly has my best wishes for the promotion of the wellbeing and prosperity of these industries.
We on this side of the House support the order. I believe that the measures contained in it have the general approval and support of those directly concerned with fisheries in Northern Ireland. While the fisheries industry in the Province is relatively small, I understand that last year it accounted for over £12 million in gross value to the economy. I know that it will not be disputed when I claim that the five branches of fisheries are experiencing very difficult problems with steeply rising costs and overheads, especially for oil fuel. One vessel owner who had been out three or four nights fishing told me that it

1109
took almost three weeks of continual fishing to cover the cost of the fuel and oil for the earlier trip. This is an onerous burden facing many fishermen at the present time. Various representations have been made to me concerning the order, even within the last hour. In my view many of the representations, while fair and understandable, do not fall within the order at this time.
The five branches of the fisheries in Northern Ireland are all dealt with in this amending order. The first branch is that of the sea fisheries, which consists of about 140 small vessels and about 100 small boats, mainly engaged in inshore fishing around the coastline of the Province. Then there is the eel fishing in Lough Neagh, and then the salmon fishing in Lough Foyle and in the North Antrim area. The Minister referred to this in his explanation of the order. Extreme difficulties have been experienced because of illegal fishing and poaching in both those areas, and there is a view that the order will help considerably to ease the problem and enable salmon fishing to be much more remunerative to those who depend upon it for a livelihood.
Then there is a relatively new developing industry in commercial fish farming, which I understand last year produced 300 tons of rainbow trout for marketing. The last branch within the ambit of the fisheries in Northern Ireland concerns the small enterprising experiments and developments in shellfish cultivation. This takes place in Strangford and Foyle Loughs, and involves oyster and mussel beds, and lobsters; I do not know whether it is cultivation or breeding, but it involves lobsters, anyway.
All those branches are I believe covered in the amending order. The main question which emerges from representations made to me is that, while the order is certainly welcomed, and stronger and more realistic penalties will be imposed, do the Government have readily available the manpower and equipment to enforce the regulations? One appreciates the good intentions behind the order, but unless its objectives are enforceable, those who rely on these industries for a livelihood will still be at risk.
As I said earlier, the five branches of the fisheries have their own particular approach to the order. However, they are all agreed that there is need for efficient management, improved conservation, and better control and development measures. I believe that the order helps to prevent over-fishing and gives the department more powers to deal with persons who offend and contravene the regulations, by imposing more realistic penalties.
I should like to put to the Minister a couple of questions which have been raised with me. The first relates to Article 3—and here I repeat what I said in my earlier comments. Unless there is effective manpower and equipment to go after persons who are poaching or misusing the fishing fields, then to some degree the order will be nullified. Article 4 deals with improved records. I totally agree that the voluntary system does not give the information that helps the department. However, it is felt that the records should be kept in a simple form, easily controlled and regulated, and written up by the fishermen and those directly involved.
1110
Article 7 deals with the question of unlawfully-caught salmon or trout. The question that has been posed to me is: many retailers, restauranteurs and hoteliers come into possession of these poached salmon and trout—I mean "poached" in the sense of illegally possessed rather than cooked. Will these retailers be subject to these regulations, or are there any other powers which can be brought to bear on those involved in such misdemeanours in this respect?
I am sorry that I did not get the chance to speak earlier to the Minister about this last point. It arises from Article 8, Schedule 2, dealing with the licensing of the shell-fishing industry and the right of appeal. Schedule, 2 paragraph 132, of the order states:
"accord to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Department;".
There is concern that the person appointed should be someone approved by both sides of the industry. He should be an impartial person and not a departmental official of some description. That will be an important aspect of the administration of the order. With those remarks, we on this side of the House approve the order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing this somewhat complex order. I have listened, as always, with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has said. The only thing I should like to say at this point is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very sincerely on his promotion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords who have congratulated me on my added burdens of responsibility. Indeed, I do find it a most agreeable and interesting responsibility to be given. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, has rightly said that the fishing industry and all its five branches recognise the common interest that they all have in the proper regulation of the industry. Only those who pursue the life of an honest fisherman can suffer from the permission for dishonest fishermen to pursue their trade or indeed for disease to proliferate.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also asked about the manpower required for the implementation of this order. In fact the changes made by the order do not imply a noticeable extra burden on manpower and therefore the present level of manpower will be applied to implementing the revised regulations. On the question of records, I think the noble Lord agreed that it is necessary to keep them if one is to control the trade of what is potentially a diminishing stock of fish, not only in the waters that surround the Province but throughout the world. I sympathise entirely with his wish that records should be kept simple. I imagine that they will often be kept in fact by people with cold, wet fingers standing in the open. But I will take that very much on board and I will see that what can be done is done to ensure that nothing needless is recorded and that the form of the record is one that is easy to keep up.
On the question of fish that are poached, in the venal rather than culinary sense, there is provision for the prosecution of those who knowingly sell either salmon or trout which have been illegally taken. Of course,

1111
there must be a defence for those who do so unknowingly.
The noble Lord then asked about the appointment of a person to hear an appeal not to grant a licence. Consideration will, of course, be given to the appointment of a suitable person who is acceptable to all concerned. I am not saying that precise machinery exists for this, but it will be my intention to see that such a person is appointed, as that will obviously make things run more smoothly. I think that covers all the questions which the noble Lord has asked, and I commend this order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981
7.46 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Northern Ireland (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981, a draft of which was laid before the House on 19th January, be approved. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and has made no comment on it.
The order seeks to increase the maximum amount which may be spent by candidates contesting district council elections in Northern Ireland. The increase will compensate for inflation since March 1977 when the rates were last fixed. The current limits of £72 plus 1·5p per registered elector in the district electoral area will be increased to £110 plus 2·3p per elector. In percentage terms this will mean an increase of just over 53 per cent., which is closely in line with the increase in the general level of prices since 1977. These, of course, are limits on expenditure by candidates and public funds are not involved.
My Lords, I commend to you this limited but important measure, which will ensure that candidates in the local general elections in May can effectively put their case before the electorate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th January be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, we on this side of the House agree with the principle involved in taking care of inflation. The one question I would ask is: Is the order consistent with the regulations governing the expenses for local government elections in Great Britain?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I did not quite catch what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain whether this is any different from the rest of the United Kingdom—I beg your Lordships' pardon; I realise that is what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for giving me time to discover the answer to that question. The limits in Northern Ireland are not the same as those which apply in local authority elections in Great Britain. The reason can be found in the differences in the size of electoral areas and in the
1112
proportional representation system of elections, which give rise to that increase in area. These factors are bound to affect the level of expenses which candidates need to incur. However, as in Great Britain, the limits are raised in line with changes in the value of money, so that the rate of rise is pari passu. Therefore, I think that the answer to the question of whether these rises are consistent is "yes" As to whether they are the same, the answer is "no".
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.49 p.m. until 8 p.m..]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill, may I say that conversations have been held through the usual channels and, although we were very much hoping that we might reach the end of Part I tonight—that is, the end of Clause 25—I do not think it really looks very likely or achievable at the moment. So we have arranged that, with your Lordships' permission, the House shall sit until the most suitable and convenient moment around half-past twelve.
I hope that the House, interested though noble Lords are in this Bill and important though some of the provisions are, will treat the matter as expeditiously as possible. Having the cut-off point at round about half-past twelve, let us try in that time to get as far as we possibly can towards the unachievable goal that we have set ourselves. If your Lordships will be kind enough to aim to get as far as possible it will be very helpful indeed. Otherwise it might prove difficult in future years for us to get our right share of important legislation starting in this House in the volume that we should like. I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Denham.)
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I respond to what the noble Lord has said? We on this side entirely agree about the timing. But I am not sure that it might not be politic and useful for him to repeat the last part of his statement when his own Benches are rather fuller. I am sure that the Committee will give him permission to interrupt and do so. He would have, anyway, a great deal of support from this side.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee, on Clause 11.
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 159 not moved.]
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 12, line 24, after ("aforesaid,") insert ("unless any such trap be designed to hold the animal alive and uninjured and any such animal caught is intended to be and is subsequently released alive into the wild").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is raised because there is some concern among members of the Mammals Society, concerning the interpretation of Clause 11(2)(b). I must say that it has a phraseology which I find extraordinarily difficult to interpret. It reads:
"uses for the purpose of killing or taking any such wild mammal any such article as aforesaid, whether or not of such a nature and so placed as aforesaid".
This seems to bring into the range of forbidden methods of catching not only mammals in Schedule 6, but also wild mammals in general, something that is roughly like a kind of trap, but not precisely the type of trap which is specified in the previous paragraph. Therefore, I feel that clarification is necessary.
This is particularly so because mammalogists, for purposes of education and for purposes of research, make use very widely of a small type of trap, known as the Longworth trap, which is a highly successful design of live trap for small mammals. The makers of this trap inform me that they sell about 1,500 a year within this country and there is also a considerable export market. The Longworth trap is a very important and widely used tool for individuals conducting their research, for schools in teaching, for universities, for adult education centres, including field study centres, and so on. Naturalists' trusts make use of it in survey work, in class exercises, for research and so on, wherever it is desired to catch small mammals, to do no harm to them, to mark them in some way, quite often, or to inspect them, to examine them and subsequently to release them.
So this is not a trap which causes injury to the animal, which is released alive. The only possible injury that it can cause is to shrews, which are in Schedule 6. But any man operating a Longworth trap, with the foresight to place in that trap a little piece of dog meat or something like that which can be eaten by the shrews, will not kill such shrews as enter into this trap. The types of mammal that enter this trap are small field mice, wood mice, voles and so on. As I say, it is extremely important and each year some hundreds of operators are using the Longworth trap.
It it is the case that this rather incomprehensible wording in subsection (2)(b) would prevent the free use of a catch-alive trap, when it was not designed or intended to kill the wild mammal caught, whether protected or unprotected, then there is concern and I shall press my amendment, or some similar amendment that would take care of it. If it is intended by these words to ban the use of live traps, then it must be realised that every year there will be several hundreds of individuals, and certainly dozens of institutions and those running field courses, each of which would probably have a dozen or more members who would use these traps. So several hundred licences would have to be issued each year to people who are making use of this trap for highly desirable, non-damaging, non-injurious purposes. So, if it is not the intention that such a trap should be covered by the Bill, then I would ask for a
1114
very clear statement from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The Bill, as it is drafted, provides that a licence can be given by the Nature Conservancy Council for scientific and educational purposes. This is the course which we favour. It may seem unnecessarily bureaucratic, but the restriction on methods of killing certain mammals—and the shrew is one of them—arises from the Council of Europe Convention. it is also a requirement of the convention that every two years the contracting parties to it report to the standing committee on the exceptions which they have made. The record of licences which are issued, and which permit certain methods to be employed against certain species, will, in fact, provide the basis for that report. But I can assure my noble friend that no obstacles will be placed in the way of licences which permit the use of traps such as the Longworth trap for scientific and educational purposes. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will be satisfied and will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That does not really answer my question. I heard my noble friend very clearly refer to the killing of animals and I want to stress again that I am not discussing, a trap which kills. I am discussing a trap which keeps alive. If the Nature Conservancy Council wishes to be burdened with this excessively large number of licensing requests, then that must be so. I am perfectly certain that schools, universities, adult education centres and so on throughout the country, which are making use of that Longworth trap, will find this a bureaucratic nuisance. But if my noble friend is able to consult with his advisers, and to stress the fact that I am not talking about the killing of any Schedule 6 mammals or, in fact, about the killing of any mammals at all—I am talking about the kind of trap which catches them and keeps them alive—I think he will perhaps be able to reassure me that this peculiar phraseology in paragraph (b) is not necessary under the convention.
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend may be under a misapprehension, which is probably due to me. The fact is that there will not be any restrictions upon the use of the type of trap to which he referred, the Longworth trap, though in some cases some traps incidentally happen to kill shrews, although they may be used for the trapping of other animals. The fact that I used the word "killing" in the explanation of the reasons for having this in the Bill may possibly have misled my noble friend. However, I do not think that there is anything between us.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am greatly reassured to hear from my noble friend that there is no restriction on the Longworth trap. That fact now being on the record, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 162A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should state that if the next amendment, Amendment No. 163, is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 164.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 163:
Page 12, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble Lord said: We probably dealt with the points concerned in this amendment while discussing an earlier one. Therefore, it might be quickest if I did not move it.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("or semi-automatic")
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that last week, when we debated Clause 5 which contains a subsection identical to this, I moved an amendment to leave out the whole of the line. Clause 11 gives us a second chance to discuss the question of semi-automatic or self-loading weapons before we get to the Report stage.
So far as automatic weapons are concerned, I have no particular quarrel with the Government if they wish to retain in the Bill the prohibition on their use. I still think that it is superfluous, but on the belt-and-braces principle it probably does no harm to leave it in, provided that we understand quite clearly, as I said last week on Clause 5, what is meant by the term "automatic". Noble Lords may have noticed that I have put down a fresh amendment to the interpretation clause to cover that point.
So far as the present clause is concerned, originally I had tabled an identical amendment to that in respect to Clause 5. Since then I have withdrawn it and substituted the present amendment, simply to leave out the words "semi-automatic". It is quite illogical that this Bill should seek to prohibit semi-automatic or self-loading weapons when nothing is said about repeating weapons, by which I mean those with a magazine which are reloaded by the manual operation of some part of the mechanism. If these are acceptable and not to be prohibited, as it appears at present, what is the objection to the use of semi-automatic weapons?
The Government will have to produce a better reason for this provision than to say that they are bound by an EEC directive. My understanding is that these so-called directives are not binding and that some member countries have not accepted this provision in their own territories. If there is evidence in existence that semi-automatic weapons are being misused to a considerable extent, that could be a reason for prohibiting them, but so far the Government have not produced any evidence of that kind. In the absence of such evidence, it is surely absurd to ban something on the grounds that it might be misused. It is sheer supposition. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said a short time ago in connection with an earlier amendment that he was not aware of the use of animals as decoys, so he saw no need for an amendment to be moved to prohibit their use. If there is no evidence of the misuse of semi-automatic weapons, then there should be no grounds for prohibiting their use.
Shotguns of this class are very useful for the control of certain pests—for example, pigeons. At certain times of the year pigeons come in enormous flocks to feed on the crops or to roost in the woods. When one has to keep a pest like that under control, surely
1116
one needs the full resources of whatever weapons one may have available. In that connection, there can surely be no harm in allowing the unrestricted use of semi-automatic or self-loading shotguns. One could make out a case for restricting the magazine capacity for use against game. However, I suggest that for the control of pests—in other words, the birds included in Part II of Schedule 2—there should be no restriction on the use of these weapons.
This clause, like Clause 5, draws no distinction between shotguns and rifles or between rifles of different classes. One class of rifle which should certainly be exempted from the provisions of this clause is the ·22 semi-automatic rifle, which is a very useful weapon for the control of such pests as rabbits, pigeons and rooks. There are very many in use throughout the country. It would be quite absurd and impracticable to prohibit their use or to say that the magazine capacity should be restricted. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment seeks to remove the use of semi-automatic weapons from the methods which may not be employed against Schedule 6 mammals unless a licence has been granted. The Government are required by the terms of Article 8 of the Berne Convention to prohibit particular indiscriminate and non-selective means of killing some wild animals which are in need of protection. Semiautomatic weapons are included in the list of indiscriminate and non-selective methods of killing. A
similar provision appears in the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds. To omit these weapons from the provisions of the Bill would be contrary to the obligations which the Government have undertaken, so I hope that my noble friend will see the reason why we find it difficult to accept his amendment. I would point out to my noble friend that it is not a ban on semi-automatic weapons in toto. It is merely a ban on semi-automatic weapons against those mammals which are listed in Schedule 6.
I understand from what my noble friend has said that he would like to know what the Government consider to be automatic and semi-automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is one which has a mechanism for loading, firing and ejecting until the ammunition is exhausted or pressure on the trigger is released. A semi-automatic weapon is one which has some particular feature of an automatic. In practice, I am advised that it must mean that the weapon ejects the spent cartridges and loads itself automatically, but that a separate pressure on the trigger is required for each missile to be discharged. These weapons, I am advised, are also known as self-loading firearms.
With that explanation, I hope my noble friend will be satisfied and will feel obliged and content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swansea: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I agree entirely with him so far as the definitions of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are concerned. I went into that very point in some detail on Clause 5. I am also aware that the scope of this subsection of Clause 11 is not so broad as that of Clause 5, but even so I thought it a suitable opportunity to make a fresh approach to the question of semi-automatic weapons in the hope of saving a little

1117
time and having a second bite at it before the Report stage. I think that I shall have to pursue again the question of the ·22 semi-automatic rifle at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 12, line 32, at end insert ("other")
The noble Earl said: This is in the nature of a drafting amendment, recognising that a mirror itself is a dazzling device and that it is necessary therefore to refer to "other" dazzling devices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 165A to 168 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 169:
Page 12, line 38, after ("vehicle") insert ("or a pack of hounds")
The noble Lord said: I think I sense the mood of the Committee, which would be to press on with more practical business. Apart from that I am lacking a certain amount of support on these Benches. I think I had better defer the abolition of foxhunting until another day. I doubt whether I could persuade your Lordships to a favourable decision on this amendment in less than about 45 minutes; therefore I shall not move this amendment.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("immediate")
The noble Lord said: When a gang of poachers are rounding up a herd of deer prior to slaughter, can every poacher's car be said to be in "immediate" pursuit? I think the word "immediate" might prove to be a technical loophole in this excellent provision. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The intention of the subsection as drafted is to prevent vehicles being used as gun platforms for hunting Schedule 6 creatures. It is not our intention, as it would seem to be that of the amendment, to prevent the use of vehicles like Land Rovers to approach areas where Schedule 6 creatures may be causing damage and where it is necessary to control them. Indeed, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted we should be in the curious position of finding that we should be unable to approach the particular site by Land Rover, for instance, but we could get to the site by shanks' pony, by a stage-coach or by a camel. Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am quite happy about the camel! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 173 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 12, line 40, at end insert ("; or
(f) uses any method other than structural exclusion to exclude from a dwelling-house wild mammals included in Schedule 6.").
The noble Lord said: As I said briefly when speaking to my amendment No. 139 about bats, I envisaged getting rid of a bat colony in a house at the right time and at the least dangerous time—not the breeding season, June to August—and to get rid of this colony with the help of the Nature Conservancy Council. It must be done in the right way, not by the use of gas or chemicals or other maiming or killing devices. The householder should have materials ready to fill in the entrance and exit apertures and do it early in the evening when the bats are away feeding. The bats will not like it but with patience and perseverance they will be forced to join other colonies and to find new places to roost. This amendment would also prevent the unnecessary destruction of other delightful visitors from Schedule 6, dormice, red squirrels, shrews and even the polecat, all of which have been known to enter occupied buildings.
I do not expect a reply to this because I know from what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said that he is going to consider the whole question of bats, but I think it is very important (and so do people who are keen on bats) that some effort should be made to use what is called the mechanical exclusion of certain animals, especially bats, from dwelling-houses. I beg to move
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining to me exactly what this amendment does, because I am bound to say that when the amendment was tabled I was not clear as to exactly what effect it would have. I realise that the problem of bats is one to which my noble friend has given a great deal of attention, and of course I will consider this along with the other amendments which have been tabled about bats.
Lord Craigton: That is all I can ask for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert ("and be liable to a special penalty")
The noble Lord said: The point here is that the penalty applicable in this clause is anomalous in comparison with that applicable in relation to birds under Clause 5. At present, subject to the provisions of the Act, if any person uses a prohibited method of killing any bird he would be guilty of an offence liable to a special penalty, which is a fine up to £500 or imprisonment for up to three months, or both. In the case of a mammal, however, a similar offence would be liable to a maximum penalty of £500. Therefore, I propose to add the words "and be liable to a special penalty" to bring the penalty for wrongdoing to animals—that is, using an outlawed weapon to kill—into line with the penalty for a like offence against birds. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This seems to be an entirely reasonable amendment, but perhaps I could be permitted to consider it further before accepting it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 12, line 43, after ("obligation") insert ("or otherwise")
The noble Lord said: After the decoy animals, which were in favour of birds and unfair to animals, and after the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, this is yet another one. Why is the Secretary of State limited in his powers of amendment about mammals to an international obligation? In relation to birds referred to in Clause 5(2), the Secretary of State has the powers that I wish to see here, similar to the one we are discussing on mammals. I wonder why he is limited to an international obligation. That is why I put in the words "or otherwise": in order to tie it up with the situation in regard to birds. I beg to move
Earl Ferrers: The clause as drafted is designed so that the Secretary of State may give speedy effect to any international agreements which the Government have concluded, relating to the prohibition of certain methods of the killing or taking of animals. The amendment which my noble friend has suggested would give the Secretary of State a much wider power and it is conceivable in certain circumstances that the power might be used to vary the methods of killing for other than conservation reasons. I should have thought it would be bad for the Secretary of State to have more power than Parliament specifically permits him. I would hope my noble friend would agree not to press this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I certainly would not press it, but I would ask my noble friend at a later date to have a look at the situation of birds, because as I read the Bill he has these powers in relation to birds and not in relation to mammals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 177 to 180 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("those subsections")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: Accept.
Earl Ferrers: I am not so sure. We have run on so quickly that it is not always easy to keep pace with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I think this is a question of semantics, but I am advised that the clause as drafted is quite sound. The effect of adding or omitting any method in subsections (1) or (2) would be to vary only one of the subsections and not both, and "that subsection" in line 3 is correct. With this short explanation, which I hope the noble Lord will find acceptable, perhaps he will consider withdrawing the amendment. He moved it very hastily. He did not
1120
explain what he was trying to do, but I think what he is trying to do is not correct.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: If the noble Earl is satisfied, so am I, on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 182:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order adding any method of killing or taking any wild mammal shall be made under this subsection unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order is necessary for the purpose of conservation.")
The noble Earl said: I think this point was very adequately covered in Amendment No. 61, and we got a totally satisfactory answer from the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
8.35 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("(5) An order made under this section shall not have effect unless or until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a similar amendment to one we have had in the past. Some of my noble friends and I do not really think that in this clause—during consideration of which we have had one quite important Division; there is certainly feeling about the matter we divided on—this should be a matter for an order made by the Minister. We think it should be for an affirmative order, and therefore for debate in both Houses of Parliament, either by the present Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State.
Lord Melchett: We discussed a similar amendment, No. 66, at much the same time as we discussed a similar amendment at No. 182, namely No. 61. I said then, and I think what I said found some favour with noble Lords opposite and possibly even with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that of the two alternative approaches—and I see these as two alternative approaches to the problem—we much prefer the approach being adopted by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, subject to the Government's consideration of the exact terms of the qualification, because, as Lord Avon said, the wording needed looking at. I would hope we would do the same here as we did previously; in other words, leave this to be looked at by the Government, and hopefully be able to adopt the procedure which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, had their eye on.
Lord Gibson-Watt: May I just say that this is slightly different, in so far as under subsection (3) it might be for the purpose of complying with an international obligation, and we should not like this to be slipped through without proper debate. I think there is a great deal of suspicion about the European decisions on this matter. We think that something of this importance should be properly debated in both Houses.
Earl Ferrers: I hope there will not be any feeling of suspicion. The Bill provides that any order amending the lists of protected creatures or restricted methods of killing shall be made by statutory instrument. It is not considered that the content of any of the orders concerned will be of such importance as to justify a parliamentary debate. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt that it is relevant to point out that the absence of any parliamentary procedure in relation to these sort of orders accords with the present provision under Section 13(1) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. So far as I am aware, no one has previously suggested that there was any need for a more elaborate procedure. I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree that that is reasonable.
Lord Gibson-Watt: On reflection, I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Duke of Atholl: I should like very briefly to raise one point. Would the Front Bench consider making sub-aqua guns, harpoons and such like weapons illegal for the killing of animals? It seems to me that they can do a lot of harm. They are getting more and more common in many Scottish rivers, and it seems to me an undesirable trend. I apologise that I have not put down an amendment to this effect, but I think it would be desirable to include such weapons in this clause.
Lord Craigton: I would support that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We support it.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend asks whether I will consider it. The answer is, yes.
The Earl of Onslow: Before we suddenly say, "Will everybody accept sub-aqua guns being stopped?", I think the matter should be given considerably more consideration than just to say "Heigh ho, let us stop aqua-gun shooting". That is basically what my noble friend has said.
Earl Ferrers: I said it would be considered.
The Earl of Onslow: All right, I withdraw the words "heigh ho". We should be much more careful when we launch into considerations of such things as this. Aqua-lung fishing is a very great sport.
Lord Dulverton: It may be a very great sport, but it is also a very fine weapon in the hands of the salmon poacher in Scottish rivers. I would suggest that in considering the point raised by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl it might be a good thing to consider banning these underwater weapons in fresh waters.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As well.
Earl Ferrers: I will consider that as well.
Lord Gibson-Watt: May I ask my noble friend one quick question? In Schedule 6, which is really what we have been discussing with this clause, we come to the question of the polecat. The polecat is a rare beast in most parts of Britain, but it certainly is not in mid-Wales. It is extremely prolific and we get population explosions from time to time. If we have to deal with this when it happens, would it be covered by the possibility of applying for a licence?
Earl Ferrers: If my noble friend is disturbed by polecats then the right thing to do is to apply for a licence, and if he has a licence he will be permitted to take them.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Melchett: moved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Badgers Act 1973
The Badgers Act 1973 is amended as follows:—

(a) in section 1(2)(a) leave out "recently killed "and insert" dead";

(b) in section 1(2)(b) leave out "freshly skinned";

(c) in section 1(2) leave out "he shall, subject to subsection (3) below, be guilty of an offence" and insert "which is not shown to have been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence;

(d) in section 2, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—

"(c) save as may be authorised by licence granted under section 9 of this Act, dig for any badger, or;

(e) section 6 shall be omitted;

(f) section 7 shall be omitted;

(g) section 8(2)(c) shall be omitted save for the final word "or";

(h) in section 9, there shall be inserted after paragraph 9(1)(d) the following paragraph:—

"(e) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property to kill or take badgers within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified, provided that the appropriate authority may only issue such a licence if satisfied that all reasonable means of preventing such damage by methods that are not likely to injure or kill any badger have been thoroughly tried by the person applying for the licence and have failed to prevent such damage.";
(i) in section 9, there shall be inserted after paragraph 9(2)(b) the following paragraph:—
"(c) in the case of a licence under paragraph (e) of that subsection, the Secretary of State for the Environment after taking advice from the Nature Conservancy Council or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State after taking advice from the Nature Conservancy Council";

(j) in section 10(1)(c) leave out "badger whether alive or dead, any weapon or article capable of being used to kill or take badgers, which may be in that person's possession" and insert "anything which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be forfeited under subsection (3)";

(k) in section 10(2)(a) leave out ("£20") and insert ("£500");

(l) in section 10(2)(b) leave out ("£100") and insert ("£500");

(m) in section 11, leave out the definitions of" area of special protection" "authorised person" and "local authority";

(n) in section 11 at end insert" "sale" includes hire, barter and exchange";").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 185. I am afraid this will take a little longer than some of the amendments we have just been dealing with

1123
because it is a fairly substantial chunk. But I think it is important—
The Earl of Caithness: May I interrupt the noble Lord? This is quite an important point. I should like to ask the Government whether they consider this amendment, the next amendment, No. 186, relating to the Conservation of Seals Act, and Amendment No. 188, relating to the Deer Act, as appropriate amendments to this Bill? If the existing legislation specifically on deer, badgers and seals is inadequate, surely the advisers to the Government or to noble Lords would have recommended that separate Bills be introduced to deal with the appropriate problem? Perhaps the Government spokesman could comment on this point before we continue?
Lord Melchett: If the Committee agree, I think that I might be allowed to move my amendment and then the noble Earl and anybody else who wants to do so may comment on whether they think it is a good amendment. As I understand it, once it has been accepted by the House authorities as coming within the required rules of your Lordships' House, I am entitled to get on my feet and move it as quickly as I can.
My reason for moving this amendment was that I took my inspiration from statements by Government Ministers. First, during the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in response to something that I said in my Second Reading speech pointed out, at column 1090 of the Official Report for 16th December:
"The badger is already afforded a measure of protection by the Badgers Act 1973".
He went on to spell out what that protection was and then said:
"In this Bill we are proposing to increase the degree of protection which a badger might enjoy by including it in the schedule of mammals against which a range of methods described in Clause 11 should not be employed, except under licence".
The noble Earl went on very kindly to say, at column 1091, that if new proposals were made at this stage—the Committee stage of the Bill:
"obviously we shall consider them carefully at the Committee stage".
His honourable friend the Minister, Mr. Monro, in a debate in another place on 10th November last year, at column 165, went a little further than that and said:
"I feel that it is a sad fact that the Badgers Act 1973 has not provided the protection for which many of us hoped. We all know that an unauthorised person may not kill a badger. In an area of special protection an authorised person may kill only to prevent serious damage, which must be obvious and easily proved".
The Minister went on:
"Yet, we know that badgers are being killed without those qualifications being satisfied".
It seemed to me at any rate, taking my cue from statements by the Government which I personally very much welcomed, that it would be useful for us to look at some amendments to the Badgers Act when discussing protection for the badger which is already, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, pointed out, covered by a particular part of the Bill. I thought that it would be useful in particular because the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that aspects of animal welfare were covered in other legislation—for instance, the Badgers Act, and he
1124
said that at Second Reading as well. It seemed to me that it would not be possible to provide the sort of protection which I, and I think the Minister in another place, considered was now necessary for the badger, without actually amending the Badgers Act. The substantive parts of this Bill were not the right means to employ. That is why again I have gone for an amendment to the Badgers Act itself.
Briefly, to support the case for further protection, which I think is substantively accepted by the Government and I hope will be accepted by many noble Lords, I point out that there has, as noble Lords will know, been a problem with badgers in the South-West of England where they have been gassed by the Ministry of Agriculture because it is felt that they are transmitting a disease to cattle. Nothing that I want to do in my amendment would affect that one jot. The Government have a report from the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, suggesting that these procedures should continue. It does not seem to me that this Bill is the place to debate that or to try and alter those procedures. Those procedures are carried out under licence and that would, as far as my amendment is concerned, continue completely unaltered and for my part I would not wish to raise that issue in this debate at all.
What I do wish to raise is something which many of us were worried about when provisions to allow the gassing of badgers were originally introduced. I held a position in the Government when those amendments were made to the Bill and went through your Lordships' House. What worried me and a number of other noble Lords at that time was that the publicity which was generated by the controversy over whether badgers should be gassed in the South-West or not would lead to the badgers being given a very bad image in the eyes particularly of the farming community in the rest of the country, and an image which was completely unjustified. Badgers were not a threat to cattle outside the limited areas in the South-West where the gassing is being carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture. Yet undoubtedly they are now seen as a threat to livestock farming in many areas where that suspicion is simply not justified.
I should like to pay tribute to the consultative panel, which was set up as a result of representations in this House at the time, for the efforts that they have made to disabuse people of this mistaken impression, and also to the Ministry of Agriculture whose notes and press releases I, and no doubt other farmers, regularly receive which have made the case that badgers are not a threat and a danger. Nevertheless, I am afraid that this has not got through to the extent it should have done and I think that the Minister in another place recognised that when he said that the protection under the Badgers Act simply was not working as it should do.
In recent years two special protection areas have been set up. The case which was made for the first one of those in West Yorkshire is, I think, useful to quote very briefly because it underlines the lack of effectiveness of control of these problems in the Badgers Act as it stands. The Mammal Society Badger Recorder—whose comments on the situation in West Yorkshire were what led to the area of special protection being declared—in discussing the reasons for the decline in badgers, concluded:
"It is almost impossible to stop this persecution"—

1125
that is the persecution of badgers—
"under the present law and the badgers in this county cannot survive if this rate of killing continues".
In a paper last year to the Nature Conservancy Council, Mrs. Ratcliffe commented:
"During the years of observation in the Wirral since the passing of the Badgers Act, I have taken a special notice of destruction by authorised persons and I consider this to be the reason for at least 25 per cent. of badger setts destroyed".
That is evidence which, I think I am right in saying, is in the process of leading to a second special protection area being drawn up.
To take it as briefly as I can, my amendments have the intention at least—if they have been drafted anything like reasonably—of first of all bringing certain provisions of the Baders Act, which I do not intend to go into at great length, up to date. For example, in Clause 1 (2)(a) of the Badgers Act the phrase "recently killed badger" is to be found. We discovered with the experience of the Protection of Birds Act, that the phrase "recently killed" is such an enormous loophole and so impossible to define in law that it is unworkable. The Wildlife and Countryside Bill corrects that for birds, and I hope that we shall be able to do the same for badgers. The same applies to the amendments to Clause 1(2)(b) which states "freshly skinned badger". The substantive amendments to the Badgers Act in this amendment would remove the provision for special protection areas, but would leave badgers protected throughout the country unless somebody had a licence to kill them. That really is the purpose of the amendment.
It seems to me that where a badger is causing damage—if that happens; and in my experience it very rarely, if ever, happens, apart from the problems in the South-West—it would be quite reasonable for the landowner, the farmer or whoever it was, to get a licence to deal with the particular problem. In all other cases the badger would be protected and it would be illegal to kill one. It seems to me that, unless we go for something as simple and straightforward as that, the accelerating destruction of badgers throughout the country, where it is not justified by any disease control procedures, will continue to accelerate. I hope therefore, that my attempt at meeting the problems which the Minister himself recognised in another place, will meet with the Committee's and the Government's approval. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He has explained that this amendment seeks to strengthen the Badgers Act rather than get this species mixed up with the rather complicated criteria and conditions of Schedule 5. However, I think that we must treat the badger on its own merits, as it were. The badger has been very badly treated for many, many years and the 1973 Act offered some hope that a good deal of the prejudice and legendary nonsense about the badger would be dispelled and that it would be given a new status among the mammals of Britain. Unfortunately, we no sooner had the Badgers Act on the statute book than this dreadful trouble arose over the suspected infection of cattle by badgers with bovine tuberculosis. To a subsequent Bill that was going through your Lordships' House in 1974 we had to add the provisions
1126
to enable the Department of Agriculture not only to control but to undertake destruction of badgers in the infected areas. I remember what a struggle we had at the time to get the Government to accept the advisory committee so that the decision about the destruction of badgers in allegedly infected areas should not be left entirely to the discretion of officials of that department.
This problem, which has recently been investigated by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has undoubtedly again put back the badger, because many people now regard the badger as being associated with some kind of infection of other animals. In a certain area of the country the badger is being destroyed in large numbers. It is very difficult to get the idea of protection established and held if the badger is being destroyed in large numbers in one part of the country and is supposed to be protected in another.
At the time I found it necessary to circularise farmers in my part of Surrey, to tell them that what was happening over the gassing of badgers in the South-West of England did not apply in their area, that the badgers in their area were not infected and that therefore they must not destroy them. I thought it necessary to do that because of the general feeling that badgers were probably a danger to cattle in areas other than those designated as danger areas.
As to the effectiveness of what is going on, I make no comment. As my noble friend said, we are not dealing with that now. But we cannot help but deal with the consequences—in one respect at any rate-—of what is going on; that is, the prejudice to the position of the badger. If we leave matters as they are, there is a danger that the numbers of badgers may diminish quite rapidly. West Yorkshire has been very badly hit and has been made a special protection area. The situation is very sad in that part of the country.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will try to safeguard the badger from the unfavourable consequences of its present position and its unfortunate relationship with the belief that badgers are infecting cattle with bovine tuberculosis. I think that that is owed to this animal. I know it very well. I have badgers within yards of my home and I know a great deal about them; I am probably on better terms with badgers than many noble Lords who also have them on their land. You have to spend a great deal of time on badgers to get on terms with them. It is like dealing with the Tory Party: they hold themselves at a distance. However, they can he encouraged; they can be brought on. They are very nice animals to know when you are in a position to know them.
I have said enough. I hope that this amendment will be favourably received. I hope that the noble Earl will throw off this mood of depression which must have descended upon him from having to resist so many amendments for so long, only promising consideration, never being forthcoming and never offering the hand of friendship across the Table. It is now time—it is nine o'clock—to revive our spirits and to feel that we have accomplished something worthwhile in being here today.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I have just as much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as I have with Tommy Brock, but I very much question whether

1127
tonight we should be debating the Badgers Act within this Bill. If we debate the Badgers Act, a great many other Acts are referred to in the Bill which we could also debate. Perhaps it would be as well if my noble friend on the Front Bench ruled on this.
Lord Craigton: I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, except the dirty cracks about the Tory Party. The incidence of tuberculosis and the Zuckerman Report have caused some considerable confusion. Advantage is being taken of it. I heartily support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
The Earl of Onslow: Funnily enough, should we not be arguing for the repeal of the Badgers Act completely? If not, why do we not have a Great Crested Newt Act, a Sandbowl Snail Act or a Dolphin, Bottlenosed Act? Surely in this Bill we are providing protection and conservation—perhaps conservation only—of species. Should one particular species be singled out for special protection? I would suggest to your Lordships that otters are much rarer than badgers. Of course one wants to protect badgers. Of course one does not want them indiscriminately killed or slaughtered. Of course badger-digging with tongs was a very unattractive performance. I agree with all of that. But surely is it not better to regard all animals as coming under this one Act, properly under their own schedules, rather than mucking about with one particular animal in this particular way?
Lord Melchett: I should like to respond to that and, to some extent, to the suggestion that it is not right in a Bill, which is already re-enacting and amending almost every piece of wildlife legislation that we have in this country, that we should not do the same for one more Act. If I may say so, it seems to be a strange suggestion. On the reason for retaining the Badgers Act, as I say, I have great sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said: it would be much simpler if we simply repealed it and had animal conservation issues covered by this Bill. The problem with that is twofold.
First, to some extent the Badgers Act was an animal welfare Act, and, for example, it includes the banning of the use of badger tongs, which the noble Earl mentioned. It would be necessary to include those particular provisions, presumably in Clause 11, were we to abolish the Badgers Act. The second argument is, to some extent, the Government's argument. As I understand it, they have said that they are quite prepared to see the birds part of this Bill as a conservation and protection measure. In fact, they cannot avoid that because they are re-enacting the Protection of Birds Acts, which are a mixture of conservation and protection. That is why all birds are protected except those of the pest species, which are excluded.
We argued on an earlier amendment for the same approach to be adopted for mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The Government have said rather mildly that they will look at some of the points we raised, but I think that it would be unrealistic to hold out any great hope that they will accept that amendment in toto. As I understand it, they are resisting it mainly on the basis that the part of the Bill dealing with mammals
1128
should be a conservation measure only. If that is the Government's line, the only way in which we can provide additional protection for badgers of the sort that we, on this side of the Committee, think is needed is by amending the Badgers Act.
Therefore, we have been driven to these amendments by the Government's attitude. I make no great complaint about that. I do not think that that is unreasonable, but, by the same token, I hope that noble Lords will not think that it is unreasonable for us to have adopted this particular tactic of amending the Badgers Act.
9.1 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I think that it was my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt who asked me to rule on whether or not this was permitted. Far be it from me to rule on what your Lordships are permitted to do, but if your Lordships put down an amendment about the Badgers Act, then your Lordships are entitled to do so and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was quite right to move it. I shall do my best to respond to it. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his effort at constructiveness in this amendment. Indeed, I was grateful to him for saying that he did not want to draw on the controversy which surrounded the gassing of badgers. This is important.
I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton was going to test me a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in supporting the action which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken, because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that badgers are being destroyed in large numbers. I would only say on that subject that where badgers are gassed in the South-West of England it is only where it is shown without, I would say, doubt that there is a connection between the tuberculosis in badgers and outbreaks of tuberculosis in cattle. That is the reason for it.
The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says that this gassing of badgers gives the impression to other people that badgers are therefore bad things, may be an unfortunate result of an unfortunate state of affairs in the South-West of England. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he felt that I must be very depressed, and why could I not take the hand of friendship and accept the amendment. I am not at all depressed by the debates. I may be a little confused by them. When I accepted an amendment earlier on about red squirrels, that acceptance of the amendment caused more of a fuss than the non-acceptance of many others.
I would go along with both noble Lords in the fact that they are conscious, as we are, of the public concern that has been expressed recently about the badger and its status. The Nature Conservancy Council advise that its status as a British mammal is not endangered, and there is no scientific case therefore for adding the badger to Schedule 5; and, of course, that is not the effect of Lord Melchett's amendment. The effect generally is to afford greater protection to the badger to the extent that authorised people would not be able to take or kill a badger on their own land without first taking the precaution of obtaining a licence.
There is already a provision in the Badgers Act to restrict freedom of action on the part of the owner-occupier of land to take or to kill badgers on his land, if his land forms part of an area of special protection designated by the Secretary of State. One such area

1129
has been designated, and that is in West Yorkshire. Another is under consideration in the Wirral, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to it. The designation of an area of special protection provides a defence to an authorised person who kills or takes the badger, to the extent that he has to show to a court before whom he is brought that the action taken was necessary for the purposes of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property, or for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease.
The amendment goes further by requiring the prior issue of a licence before such action is taken. This may be regarded as an unjustifiable intrusion upon an authorised person's freedom to do what he wants on his own land, but of course there are occasions when such freedom ought to be curtailed in the national interest, and I have some sympathy with the intention of this amendment. The Nature Conservancy Council has advised that they consider the general protection afforded to badgers is not satisfactory. They have highlighted as the main weakness of the Badgers Act 1973 the unregulated activities of authorised persons who are in general exempt from the provisions of the Act.
I am not necessarily entirely happy with the way in which the increased protection for the badger is sought. For example, we would not wish to increase the penalty for an offence against Section 5, which is the offence of failing to provide one's name and address to an authorised person, to £500. Neither do we necessarily believe that the licensing provisions should become the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will be required to act upon the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council.
I say that, but I wish to emphasise that in no way are we implacably opposed to the amendment. Far from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Environment, when he spoke in another place before Christmas, confessed to an affection for the badger, and thought that it was a sad fact that the Badgers Act 1973 had not provided the protection which many in both Houses had sought.
We would like to consider further what might be done outside the control areas in the South-West of England which are undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, where regrettably action has had to be taken against the badger to prevent bovine tuberculosis. I should like to consider what steps may be taken to increase yet further the protection of the badger. On the basis of this understanding, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, might withdraw his amendment because at the moment in its present form it is not wholly acceptable.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask him a question? I support him very much on this proposal, but I wish he had gone on to talk about paragraph (h) of the proposed new clause. In this, persons may be licensed to take badgers
"for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property…"
If we are concerned with the public image of the badger—and I personally love badgers and believe they do
1130
not do any harm at all, except that they are unfortunately infected with T.B.—surely it is not doing any good to talk about badgers doing serious damage?
Lord Melchett: I take my noble friend's point. That paragraph was put in in an effort to make the amendment as acceptable as possible. I was trying not to be unreasonable, and it seemed to me that the fact that somebody would have to go and ask for a licence would be sufficient protection for the badger. In other words, they would have to show that there was serious damage occurring to one of these things. It seemed to me that without that sort of paragraph there would be—I do not know about justifiable—some opposition to the changes I was suggesting if the badger had total protection, and there was no provision for killing a badger that was causing some damage. I agree with my noble friend: in my experience they do not cause any damage of this sort, and that was the conclusion of the working party which looked at this matter and which had on it the representations of the NFU, the CLA, the British Field Sports Society, and so on. There is a fair degree of unanimity on this, but it does not seem to me that that paragraph does any harm.
I was delighted with what the noble Earl had to say, and I am grateful for it. I accept that what I have in my amendment is not right in a number of respects. It slightly pre-empts discussions we are going to have on the Bill, particularly about penalties and about who would be issuing licences, and so on. Clearly, in its present form it would not be acceptable, but I was very grateful to the noble Earl for what he said and was encouraged by it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise if earlier I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at the wrong moment. These amendments appear to be separate, but as my noble friend has given an assurance to consider the matters that have been raised, I hope he will consider the provision in paragraph (h) because if a badger damages property by, for example, getting into a battery henhouse, one wants to take immediate action and the process of obtaining a licence could be too slow. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that when he considers the other aspects that have been raised.
Lord Melchett: The purpose of withdrawing the amendment and allowing the Government to consider it was because that sort of provision clearly needs to be brought into line with Clauses 4 and 10. That was why I had no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage. I should have thought we needed the same sort of provision in all these clauses, and while we may not agree on what that provision should be, once it is settled it should be common throughout the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks.
Lord Melchett: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 186:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Conservation of Seals Act 1970.
.The Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is amended as follows—

(a) in section 4(1)(b) leave out ("or boat");

(b) in section 4(1) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—

"(c) seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under this Act any thing which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be forfeited under section 6."
(c) after subsection (2) of section 4 insert the following subsection—
"(3) Except in an emergency, a constable shall consult with the Nature Conservancy Council before disposing of a live seal under subsection (2) and shall take that Council's advice where possible";

(d) in section 5(1) leave out ("£50") and insert ("£500");

(e) in section 5(2) leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000");

(f) in section 10(1), leave out paragraph (b).

(g) in section 10(1)(c), leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—

"(i) the prevention of damage to fisheries, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that all reasonable means of preventing such damage by methods that are not likely to injure or kill any seal have been thoroughly tried and have failed to prevent such damage;"
(h) in section 11(4) insert—

(i) "the owner and" after "not less than 28 days notice, to";

(ii) "the owner or" after "the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representation that might be made by the ";

(iii) "the owner or" after "the expiration of the notice ";

(i) in section 11(6) insert "the owner or" after "if required by";

(j) in section 15 at end insert ""vehicle" includes aircraft, hovercraft and boat "").

The noble Lord said: Although this is quite a long amendment, I hope I can deal with it briefly; I do not intend to go into all its details, but if any noble Lord is concerned about a particular provision, I shall be happy to explain the thought behind it. This arises as the result of an incident which was brought to my attention by somebody living in Scotland who contacted the World Wildlife Fund. The incident seems to emphasise the extent to which older pieces of legislation which were designed to protect particular species have become very much out of date and thoroughly unused, and, as I explain the incident, the Committee will see what I mean.
In October 1979 a licence was issued under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 which authorised the taking of 12 live grey seal pups for a zoo in West Germany, and they were to be taken from an island in Scotland. No conditions about the transportation of the animals were specified in the licence and the licence incorrectly specified unmoulted pups, although the pups taken were in fact moulted, being about five weeks old. Two pups died after being kept in the back of a small van overnight and, after discussion with the Government's veterinary adviser, two further pups had to be released immediately into the sea. The remaining eight pups were then taken to a zoo in Germany.
The Government admitted in a number of Written Answers which they were kind enough to provide for me about this incident that the original arrangements made by the licensees were less than adequate. The
1132
point of my raising this matter is, first of all, that the licence which was issued was the first, in fact the only, one to be issued in the last five years in Scotland, England or Wales. It demonstrates to me that we passed that legislation some time ago and that old Acts fall into disuse, so it is a good idea to cast an eye over them to see if certain parts of them can, without too much controversy, be brought up to date.
The second point, which will commend itself to noble Lords opposite even if the rest of the amendment does not, is the fact that originally the Government said that the owner of the island had given permission for that to happen. Indeed, they said that in one or two letters they wrote to members of the public who complained about the incident. The owner of the island then contacted me saying that he had not given any such permission. The occupiers, who had the right to farm the island but who, I gather, did not live there—I think they simply grazed some animals there—had been contacted by the relevant department in Scotland and had given permission, but the owner had not.
Part of my amendment would ensure that the Government do what they were good enough to say in a Written Answer they would do in the future—namely, ensure that the owner, as well as the occupier, is always told about the issuing of a licence of this sort. That is the purpose of the amendment to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, in particular Section 11(4) and (6) of that Act. The other major change (apart from some legal details) which the amendment would make to the Conservation of Seals Act would be to ensure that licences were not issued for zoological purposes, which was the reason why the 12 pups were put in the back of a small Renault van to be taken to West Germany. It seems inappropriate for this country to be issuing licences when so much time and effort had to be involved, with the matter having to be pursued in several Parliamentary Questions over a period of months before we got the facts right.
There is a provision in the Conservation of Seals Act for seals to be taken for educational purposes and in my view it is quite sufficient for any bona fide zoo which has a genuine educational content to be allowed to take seal pups, if that is necessary, for educational purposes. I doubt if it would be necessary because, as noble Lords know, every year a number of seal pups are washed ashore stranded by storms. Where I live in Norfolk that happens on the coast regularly and there is always a great deal of difficulty in finding somebody to look after them. I would not have thought that any reputable zoo in this country would have any difficulty in getting a seal pup through that source if they really wanted one, added to which there is an establishment in Norfolk which has successfully bred a seal in captivity. I hope that with that reasonably brief introduction this amendment will also commend itself to the Government, and I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: I wonder whether it would be possible for me to take Amendment No. 188A, which stands in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. I think it would probably be convenient to the Committee to discuss seals and to deal with them before we dodge about among deer, foxes, Scottish primroses and so forth. But I must be in the

1133
hands of the Committee if it is felt I should await my turn.
Earl Ferrers: I think that possibly it might be helpful if we were to deal with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, first. I am bound to say that I am doubtful whether any good conservation purpose is to be served by amending the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. The Act represents what we believe is a reasonable balance between the protection and the control provisions for the conservation of common and grey seals in British waters. We think it is fair to claim that on the whole the Act has been successful in conserving large populations of both species, and neither is in risk of decline. It may be appropriate on a later occasion to look at the Act as a whole. Therefore, I would not be in favour of these fairly substantial amendments which the noble Lord seeks to make.
I know the noble Lord has highlighted the problems of owners who have not been notified about entry on to their land. We do not disagree with the idea that owners as well as occupiers of land should be given prior notice of the intended entry. Indeed, the administrative arrangements of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland now provide for prior notice of the intended entry to be given both to the owner and to the occupier of the land, without having it written into the Bill. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not seek to push this amendment further.
The Earl of Onslow: Does this not further underline what I was trying to suggest to your Lordships on the last amendment? Here we have two specific species, the seal and the badger, which are protected. They are common animals, as has been said by my noble friend, protected by special Acts of Parliament. Is it not much more sensible to bring the whole of the protection and conservation (call it what you will) under the aegis of one Act of Parliament? I hope that this particular Bill, when it becomes an Act, especially after the time we have spent on it, will be a monument to good legislation on countryside conservation and all these things. Is it not infinitely better to get the two things under tile aegis of one Act? These Acts are bound to clash at some stage. That is the point I wanted to make on the first amendment, and it is now, it seems, underlined even more by the second amendment.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, having won his case (and I would have been in full support of him) on the badger, is not going to press his luck too far. It is one thing when he talks about a licence to take some seals to a zoo, and the control of that sort of thing, but this is a very controversial subject—the culling of seals, in particular, as he knows, and the impact on salmon fisheries and the rivers—and I should not like to see that whole subject reopened in this Bill. A very careful balance has been kept already, and I think that paragraph (i) on page 10 just might give a different implication. I therefore hope that he will feel it possible to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Melchett: I must say that I did not feel nearly as strongly about this particular amendment as I did about the previous one, and I am myself inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Home, has
1134
suggested to me. I think it is important that the Government should take on board, not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales, the need to tell owners as well as occupiers of land if they are going to issue licences for what are bound to be controversial purposes, even if no pups are stuffed in the back of a small van and die during the night. I hope it will not be just in Scotland, but also in England and Wales, that that point is taken on board, because the unfortunate owner is liable, as this one was, to be heavily criticised in the local press for allowing this to happen when he did not know until after it had been done, which seems to me a bit unfair.
Having said that, I must say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Home, has said, that there were not nearly so many substantive points in this amendment. I hope that one day we shall have the chance to bring this Act up to date, but I am inclined to think that this Bill is not the place to do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 187:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of snaring foxes
.—(1) Any person who intentionally sets a snare to trap a fox shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection 15(2) below shall apply to this section.").
The noble Lord said: The debate on the snare which took place earlier seemed to be mostly about the fox. In the present state of prejudice on the Benches opposite against the fox, I will give noble Lords an opportunity to get over it and return to this matter on a later occasion, so I will not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): Amendment No. 188. In calling this amendment I should draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. Paragraphs IF and 1G at tile top of page 13 should appear immediately after paragraph 1E about one-third of the way down page 12.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 188:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Deer Act 1963
. The Deer Act 1963 is amended as follows:—
(a) in section 3 the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1):—
"(1A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(c)(i) above by reason of the use, for the purpose of taking or killing any deer on any land, of any smooth-bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore which is loaded—

(a) with a cartridge containing a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 350 grains (22·68 grammes); or

(b) with a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is ·203 inches (5·16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA),

if—

(i) he is an authorised person; and

(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land; and

(iii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and

1135

(iv) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage.

(1B) In subsection (1A) above "authorised person" means—

(a) the occupier of the land on which the action is taken;

(b) any member of the occupier's household normally resident on the occupier's land, acting with the written authority of the occupier;

(c) any person in the ordinary service of the occupier on the occupier's land, acting with the written authority of the occupier; or

(d) any person having the right to take or kill deer on the land on which the action is taken, or any person acting with the written authority of a person having that right.

(1C) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(c)(i) above by reason of the use as a slaughtering instrument, for the purpose of killing any deer, of any smooth-bore gun which—

(a) is not of less gauge than 12 bore; and

(b) has a barrel less than 24 inches (609·6 millimetres) in length; and

(c) is loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than ·203 inches (5·16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA or any larger size).

(1D) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(c)(i) above by reason of the use of any smooth-bore gun for the purpose of killing any deer if he shows that the deer had been so seriously disabled otherwise than by his act or was in such a condition that to kill it was an act of mercy.
(1E) The Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly may by order, either generally or in relation to any area or any species and description of deer specified in the order, repeal subsection (1A) above or amend it by adding any firearm or ammunition or by altering the description of, or deleting, any firearm or ammunition mentioned in it, or by adding any further conditions which must he satisfied.
(1F) Before making any order under subsection (1E) above the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly shall consult such bodies as appear to them to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the order.
(1G) Any order under subsection (1E) above shall be made by statutory instrument, but, notwithstanding anything in section 12(1) below, no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".
(b) in section 10 the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (3):—
"(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1 of this Act by reason of—

(a) the taking or killing of any deer by means of shooting; or

(b) the injuring of any deer by means of shooting in an attempt to take or kill it,

on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if—

(i) he is an authorised person; and

(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, pasture or woodland; and

(iii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and

(iv) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage;

and in this subsection "authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 3(1A) of this Act.";
(c) in Schedule 2 the words "of less gauge than 12 bore" and "other than a cartridge purporting to be loaded with shot none of which is less in diameter than ·269 inches" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I make two preliminary points. In case the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is worried, may I say that if he looks at the Long Title to the Bill that makes it clear that the Bill is concerned,
"to prohibit certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals",
so that the amendment which I move is in the spirit and, indeed, in the letter of the Long Title. The second preliminary point is that I hope that, in view of my having been able last night, admittedly rather late, to table the amendments which have now become 1F and 1G to which reference has just been made, I hope it will now be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, not to move his amendment because I have covered it in paragraphs 1F and 1G.
This is a bit of unfinished business. The Committee will remember my introducing a Deer Bill no less than three times between 1970 and 1980. The principles that I underline in the amendment that I now move were embodied in these Deer Bills and were accepted by your Lordships. Indeed, the actual wording of the amendment is virtually the same as in the corresponding provisions of my Bill when it left your Lordships' House two years ago. This is nothing new. It has all been here several times before and it has been a very long job trying to get it through.
In the last Session, Mr. John Farr, who took over and introduced the Deer Bill in another place, realised that, because of the large number of Private Members' Bills, the only chance of the Bill completing all its stages lay in abandoning some of the provisions so that it could go through "on the nod" at four o'clock —as it must in the House of Commons; and as it finally did. It is now law as a shortened measure. It is the abandoned provisions, the shelved provisions, that I am now seeking to retrieve and enact. Both extend to England and Wales only, so we are not now dealing with Scottish legislation. Both, clearly at this stage, had Government approval when they went through this House on the last occasion in the original extended version of my Bill. The first provision is to restrict the use of shotguns on deer and the second is to tighten up provisions on the killing of deer during the close season. These two questions have been fully debated in this House.
I would say now that my amendment has a dual aim—on the one hand, humanitarian and, on the other, as an additional weapon to ban deer poaching, which has reached unacceptable proportions throughout the countryside wherever there are deer. I want to stress that if a person has a genuine need to use a shotgun and if the use is justified and, similarly, if it is genuinely necessary and justified to kill deer during the close season, my amendment would not prohibit either of those things. Many of us deplore the killing of deer with shotguns—or, should I say, attempting so to kill deer. Noble Lords who have joined me in the previous debate have personal experience of shooting deer with shotguns on deer drives, for example, and will know that many deer are wounded and several shots are often needed to finish off the animals. Often, the deer escape to die of their wounds. This is especially

1137
true when deer are moving at a gallop, which is often the case.
This is not good enough. It does nothing for our reputation that Britain should be almost the last country in Europe where shotguns using lettered or numbered shot are still allowed for killing deer. Deer are large animals. They are extremely difficult to kill with a shotgun outright and cleanly except at very close range—maximum of 30 yards and it is extremely difficult to get within 30 yards of a deer. The number of deer roaming about with shot in their bodies is proof of the ineffectiveness and cruelty of shotguns.
Furthermore, the use of shotguns is invariably unselective. In others words, it is seldom possible to select the animals—even the sex—that should be shot. The second consideration is that while very few poachers have rifles, they often manage to get hold of shotguns—probably illegally. Everyone is agreed that all possible steps must be taken to curb the widespread activities of deer poachers, who are callous in the extreme and have no respect for the law, for other people's property, for farm animals or indeed for people, whom they often threaten and assault.
Likewise, poachers are no respecters of close seasons. The second part of my amendment therefore is aimed at deer poachers as well as the trigger-happy and unscrupulous who kill deer regardless of close seasons which, as many of the Committee know, are designed on humanitarian grounds and for reasons of good deer management. Almost every country in Europe has laid down close seasons for deer. It is right that exemptions should be strict, as they are in my amendment, and subject to specified conditions.
Members of the Committee who were present when we debated my Bill will remember that the provisions in the Bill had the support of virtually every relevant organisation. Here I should like to say how grateful I am to the National Farmers' Union for their valued co-operation in enabling us to reach agreement on the precise terms incorporated in my amendment.
I come therefore finally and briefly to the precise terms of a very long amendment. It takes the form of amendment to the Deer Act, the parent Act, of 1963. If noble Lords will look at paragraph (c) on page 12 of the Marshalled List—and I apologise that this amendment is so complicated—it will be seen that it deletes that part of the schedule to the 1963 Act dealing with shotguns. Having done this, my amendment in paragraph (a) on pages 10 and 11 redefines the types of shot that are to be permitted, the rifle slug and the AAA size of shot which, though smaller than that in the 1963 Act, is less cruel because of the greater number of shot. Tests have shown these two types to be the least unacceptable in a shotgun. The amendment then goes on to define the circumstances in which these two types of shot may be used: where an occupier (or person properly authorised) needs to protect his property, particularly growing crops, from deer causing damage. All the words, I emphasise again, have been gone over at least three times in your Lordships' House to get them exactly right.
Subsection (1C) on page 11 of the Marshalled List makes a special exemption for the use of the shortened shotgun as a slaughtering instrument. Subsection (1D) provides for mercy killing. Subsections (1E), (1F)
1138
and (1G) allow Ministers—the Minister of Agriculture being specifically included—to vary the types of weapon and shot by area or by species as proves desirable, so long as there is prior consultation with interests like the farming community, and so long as the procedure is by affirmative order in both Houses. This leaves us finally with paragraph (b) on page 12. This brings up-to-date, by using terms agreed to by the House in my original Deer Bill, the permitted exemptions from the prohibition in the 1963 Act on shooting out of season.
I apologise if I have taken rather long, but this is a lengthy and very complicated amendment. However, I hope that I have taken your Lordships' Committee through it to the point where the incomprehensible looks reasonably comprehensible. I hope that the Committee will sympathise with my objectives in trying to remedy a deficiency in the 1963 Act, to make it more humane, and to complete what I say has been unfinished business so far as your Lordships' House is concerned in getting these provisions finally on to the statute book. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must now call Amendment No. 188ZA as an amendment to Amendment No. 188.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton had given notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 188, Amendment No. 188ZA:
At end of subsection (1E) insert—
("Provided that no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was tabled by my noble friends and myself before the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, set down his own amendment. Now that he has done so, our amendment is quite redundant, and I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 188 ZA not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 188ZA is not moved. Therefore Amendment No. 188 stands as proposed.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that this was a long and complicated amendment, which indeed it is, and he asked for the sympathy of the Committee, which I think he will receive. I must say that I admire his ingenuity and persistence in trying for, I think, the fourth time to get on to the statute book a Bill in which he has been involved, but which for one reason or another he has not been able to get on to the statute book. There was a Deer Act in the last Session. It went through Parliament, was considered by your Lordships, and as a result of that only half of the Bill or thereabouts got on to the statute book. It had in that respect a regrettable history. I had a certain sympathy with my noble friend Lord Caithness when earlier he asked whether this was the correct Bill in which to make major alterations to other legislation, and indeed to the Deer Act.
The Government do not consider it appropriate to extend the scope of this Bill in order to reconsider the Deer Acts which have been so recently debated and indeed passed in both this House and another

1139
place. Deer are now controlled by the Deer Acts of 1963 and 1980, and I think it would be inappropriate and confusing to control them yet further by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as the Bill will become. That is the reason why I should find it difficult to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Northfield: The noble Earl spoke about control, but this has nothing to do with control in that sense. It is to do with the methods of killing, which the Long Title specifically includes in the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, needs some support here. I would agree exactly with what he has just said. If we can get on to the statute book a method which would bring about some form of control over the use of inappropriate weapons in relation to deer, and, if we can do it in the easiest possible form, so much the better. If it is possible to do that through this Bill, so be it—rather than go through a long rigmarole to which your Lordships' House has previously agreed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: This is a great disappointment for those of us on this side of the Committee. I think that the provisions proposed by my noble friend are agreed by everybody; I do not think that there is a single dissident. They fell by the wayside because of the kind of quirks which go on in another place, and which we in this House who were not there can never understand. The matter has been through this House, and I must ask the noble Earl at least to take away this proposal and think about it, which he has done in regard to every other clause in the entire Bill. Since this is one of the best of them, I think that at least he should do what I suggest.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: One just cannot win in this Chamber, or in Parliament. Bills come through and are passed. Then, after a short time, it seems that there is a need for some amendment. It may be five or 10 years before another Bill comes through or there is another opportunity or the Government are prepared to have another look at it. For those years we usually endure in silence—not necessarily in silence, but we endure—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In effective speech.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In effective speech, as the noble Lord says. Then, when by chance it so happens that a Bill comes, within whose Long Title this amendment which, it is agreed by all, can absolutely rightly fall without in any way infringing the constitutional proprieties, we are told that it is not suitable. I do not think that is a good enough answer. This is an inspired use of this Bill for doing something we all want to see done. I hope that the noble Lord will take it away to look at it and then bring it back again and say "Yes".
Lord Tyron: I too should like to support this amendment. I am a veteran of the innumerable Deer Bills which have gone through your Lordships' Chamber and have only in very small part seen the light of day.
1140
I really think the noble Lord needs a little more encouragement than we have seen so far. This is a very brave attempt to achieve something in a slightly unorthodox way. I have from time to time encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Northfield; I have been critical of some of his earlier Deer Bills, but I want to say that everything in this amendment I wholly approve of.
Viscount Hanworth: From this side of the Cross-Benches I too should like to support the amendment. I really do not think it is good enough to have this excuse once more that it could be better put somewhere else, if that means 10 years' hence.
Lord Dulverton: May I add to those words from various sides of the Committee and urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to deal sympathetically with this amendment? We have been sympathetic to the badger amendment and, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, did on a previous occasion get the approval of this Chamber to the measures he is now proposing.
Lord Gisborough: I hope that the Government will look at this again. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has introduced this amendment. I have one very strong criticism about all his Deer Bills, which is that they are not nearly tough enough!
Lord Craigton: I support this amendment, which I think has been accepted by your Lordships: it is down on the Marshalled List. It is in conformity with the Long Title, and a similar type of amendment with regard to the Badgers Bill has been accepted. I have great respect for the Front Bench but I really cannot see how they can say that this is not in order or that it should not be at least considered.
Viscount Ridley: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, must need the support of all of us. He has tried so hard to get this and I for one have supported him when I can. I hope the Government will look again at this matter.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Just in case it makes it easier for my noble friend on the Front Bench, may I point out to him that under Article 8 of the Berne Convention, to which this country is a contracting party, all Appendix III animals are to be protected from indiscriminate means of killing and all deer are included in the appropriate schedule?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend gets up, I think that he needs a little bit of support! I have always been against the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on his Bill, although I fully accept that what he is moving now is in the spirit of what we agreed when it left this House. What slightly worries me—and I am sure it worries the noble Lord too—is that I only saw the final amendment to this at midday today. I think it is correct, but I honestly cannot say that it is. I think that he is, as usual—and good luck to him!—pushing his luck here. I think the Government are right to take it away and look at it and to make sure that it is right. Perhaps I should say that I hope the Government will take it away and

1141
that they will not accept it; but if they do take it away, I hope they will consult all the parties that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, would want to be consulted.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I hope that the noble Earl will notice that the only supporter he had still thinks he is wrong.
Earl Ferrers: I have been trying to get to my feet during the last few minutes, just to say that I was so grateful when my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that he would do anything to make life easier for me, and then proceeded, so far as I could see, to put a knife into my back. When the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said "You can't win on this Bill", he never said a truer word, as I was castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, a little earlier, because he said that I always took things away and would not make up my mind.
We have now come to this amendment and I gave the Government's view that this was an inappropriate Bill into which to put it, because the Deer Acts were implemented in 1963 and 1980. I knew that the Government considered that it was inappropriate, so I told the noble Lord so. I did not expect for one moment that he would find that acceptable. I also did not expect for one moment to find that there would be such a lot of opposition to that modest suggestion of mine, which seemed totally reasonable.
But, in view of the fact that your Lordships on all sides consider that this is an entirely reasonable amendment to put into this Bill, even though I may not agree with it, then of course, in the delightful phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I will take the thing away and will certainly look at it again. But I am bound to tell your Lordships what I told the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in the first instance, that the Government considered that this was not appropriate. However, your Lordships seem to consider that it is appropriate, so I will take it away and think about it.
Lord Northfield: I am grateful that the chorus of supporters made the Minister kindly agree to take this away and look at it. But I would make two points to him. First, I hope that there will not be any doubt about the drafting. I am not talking about the technical detail; I am simply talking about the major proposals in the amendment. They have been agreed by your Lordships on several previous occasions. So there is no question here that I am introducing anything new. We have been over this many times, and I hope that that is agreed by him. So in agreeing to look at it, I hope the noble Earl is not saying that he will look right from the beginning again at the whole principle here. We have been over it several times and I hope that the whole House is tired of it. The second point is—
Lord Avebury: Would the noble Lord agree that the noble Earl's consideration should be confined to an examination of these proposals to see whether they are, in effect, the same as the ones that the noble Lord has presented in his Bills on three previous occasions? The question of whether or not this is appropriate here has already been determined by your Lordships this afternoon, provided that the noble Lord is advised that
1142
it fits within the Long Title.
Lord Northfield: I am grateful for that support. My second point is that I beg the noble Earl to reflect on one other problem, which is that if we do not make this final amendment of the Deer Act here, the chances of doing it for another five years are almost nil, for very specific reasons. The whole country is waiting for a Bill to amend the legislation regarding deer in Scotland. You really cannot deal with England and Wales within that one. The whole question involved in Scottish law will take some time to bring up to date. Furthermore, your Lordships' house—and I am surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has not intervened—is also waiting for another Bill to deal with deer farming. So the chances of this third lot being dealt with within the next five years, with those two already waiting in the queue, is nil, unless we put it into this Bill. Therefore, I hope that in looking at it, the noble Earl will have those points in mind, in addition to the ones that I have made.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl did not have the advantage which we on this side have, of seeing the serried ranks of nodding heads behind him while my noble friend was speaking. My feeling is that it might be better to put this into the Bill and allow the Government to amend it, if they want to. That seems to be in accord with the general feeling of the Committee and it would allow the Government to look at the drafting when we get to the Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that I have not had the advantage of sitting on his side, but if there be any advantage in seeing nodding heads on my side he is welcome to that advantage. I say to him that it is slightly disingenuous and unfair, when a Minister conies to the Committee to state in all sincerity what the Government feel, and, becoming aware of the pressure of feeling in the Committee, says "All right, I will take this away and look at it" to say "Let's push it into the Bill now". I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which is not constrained or constricted. Of course I will consider this in its entirety, and I should have thought that, with that undertaking, it would have been reasonable for the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Northfield: I am in the hands of the Committee. On the whole, I think it would be wise to withdraw the amendment. If the Government come up with very poor reasons for refusing it at Report, I hope that those noble Lords who have been very kind to me over the years in supporting it will all turn up again. Next time we shall vote it through, whatever the Government say. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 188A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Conservation of Seals Act 1970
.—After subparagraph (iii) of section 10(1)(c) (power to grant licences) of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 there

1143
shall be inserted the following subparagraph—
"(iv) the protection of the flora or fauna of a nature reserve within the meaning of Part III of the 1949 Act or an area of special scientific interest of which notification has been given to any local planning authority under section 23 of the 1949 Act or which is designated by order under section 26 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,".").
The noble Viscount said: I wish to risk the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and very briefly to return to the question of seals. I do so because it is in the interests of the conservation of the animals and birds which we have been talking about for so many hours. It is also very urgent that this matter should be considered. I should explain that this amendment was put down at short notice. Only a few days ago did the National Trust, who inspired this amendment, realise the possibility of such an amendment. There will be no question of pushing it tonight, but I should be very grateful if the matter could he considered by the Government. I should add that the Nature Conservancy Council are entirely behind such an amendment. I believe that the late Lord Cranbrook who introduced the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 into your Lordships' House would not have opposed it. Indeed, he might have supported it.
Section 10 of this Act concerns the reasons for which a Secretary of State may in certain circumstances give a licence to kill seals. The first of these is where damage to fisheries has been proved; secondly, where a reduction in the surplus population of seals is required; and thirdly where the use of such a population surplus as a resource is possible. All that is required to be added to improve this Act in a very brief and small way is a fourth reason: the protection of the habitat of a nature reserve occupied by seals. This is to be done in the interests of the other inhabitants of that nature reserve.
I speak mainly about the Fame Islands off the North-East coast of England, which I have known intimately all my life and which have on them a very large population of grey seals. The statistics are that in 1930 there was a population on these islands of some 400 seals. In 1980, it is estimated that this population reached 8,000 seals. That population is still increasing and may be spreading to islands in the Firth of Forth further north. These islands consist of a group of about 30 islands, nearly all of which are quite suitable for seals to breed on. They are mostly composed of solid rock and are perfectly acceptable. The seals do no harm there and are welcome in some respects, but on some of the islands there is a fragile cap of soil and vegetation which has been threatened in the past few years by this increase in the seal population.
There have been fairly successful attempts to drive most of these seals away to the islands where no harm is done. On about two of the islands it is considered by those responsible for the management of the islands which belong to the National Trust that some of the seals should or may have to be killed in order to protect the habitat of the birds which use this soil to nest in. It is for that reason that this amendment is sought.
I understand that the Secretary of State has said that under the Act as it stands at present he cannot give a licence for such a cull unless such an amendment is introduced. Therefore it seems to those responsible
1144
to be an urgent and necessary amendment, which I hope will in due course be accepted and which would not in any way have any effect on the number of seals. That is not the point which we are trying to make. This is not an anti-seal amendment. I believe that those responsible believe it to be important to have it before next autumn's breeding season.
The birds which are threatened by the erosion of the soil cap—which, should it happen, is something which can never be replaced—are at least three major and important species and they form part of that very important bird sanctuary: the eider duck, the puffin and the roseate tern. The latter is one which we have just put into Schedule 1 to the Bill. It is an extremely rare breeding bird in Britain. They need soil and vegetation to breed on. IF the soil goes, they may disappear. Therefore the amendment is, strictly speaking, in the interests of the conservation of nature reserves and I hope very much that it will be possible to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson: I want to support the amendment, for the very simple reason that the National Trust, of which I have the honour to be chairman, holds, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, these islands. They are sites of special scientific interest, Grade 1, and it is our duty to preserve the ecological balance on these islands. The reason why I am particularly anxious to support this amendment is that, if we were to accept the view and if the Government were to press the view that this was not an appropriate Bill in which to incorporate a minor change to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and we had to wait several years—five or more—for that change to be made, there might well not be a soil cap left for the National Trust to preserve and we should find ourselves inalienably preserving some barren rock in the North Sea, which seems to be a pointless exercise. I hope your Lordships will give consideration to that point.
We have done a great deal for the seal population of the Farne Islands which, as the noble Viscount has said, has increased some 20 times during our stewardship, and all we want is for the Secretary of State to be given the power to issue a licence to cull for the welfare of the flora and fauna and the ecological balance of the islands in addition to the welfare of the seals themselves.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment would make it clear that a licence would be granted to enable action to be taken against seals where they were causing damage to the flora and fauna of areas which were recognised as being of particular importance because of their nature conservation value. This may not be the case at present and although I accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and by my noble friend, we wish to look at this matter along with other changes to the Seals Act on a later occasion. I am not in the slightest out of sympathy with the view which has been put forward, but dare I express the hope that this amendment will not be pursued too far because I do not think it would be a good thing to amend the Conservation of Seals Act piecemeal? There will be an occasion when we can do it rather than attempting to do it in this Bill.
Viscount Ridley: I wonder whether my noble friend can indicate when there might be an occasion to amend the Conservation of Seals Act because, as I have said before, I do think it is somewhat urgent and it affects the basic provisions of that Act.
Earl Ferrers: The answer is "some time". I would not wish to be more precise than that.
The Earl of Cranbrook: At the risk of boring the Committee, I should like to reiterate a point which has been made from the Front Bench. It is a sentiment which I heartily support—that this Bill is about conservation; that is to say, about the appropriate management of our wildlife resources in this country. The National Trust has exercised its trust in an admirable fashion in managing the wildlife resource of an extremely small and fragile part of our national environmental heritage, the Farne Islands, which I hope many of your Lordships have visited, because it is an experience of extreme delight.
The point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and perhaps it needs emphasising to my noble friends on the Front Bench that the problems of the Fame Islands cannot wait for ever until the legislative processes take their due course. Seals are wearing away the soil on these islands and the soil itself supports not only an interesting island flora but it is also the nesting site of the protected birds which are nesting on these islands. These islands are of great interest. Island habitats themselves are always scientifically important in any country, providing they are adequately preserved. I understand that what is being asked for here is the appropriate authority to carry out correct environmental management and this must be the central aim of the legislation we are talking about.
Lord Avebury: I was not going to enter into a discussion on the merits of the amendment because, although I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I am not an expert on the Fame Islands or on their conservation as a habitat of birds, which he claims is being jeopardised. However, I did want to say one word about the general principles on which the Minister's reply was based, which seemed to me to be similar to those which applied in his answer to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I wonder whether it is altogether appropriate, if I may venture to say so to the noble Earl, to rest the ministerial case on the inappropriateness of a particular amendment and the remark that one should not amend other legislation in a piecemeal way by amendments in this Bill. Should not the Minister, in replying definitively to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, or the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, address himself to the merits of the amendment itself and not to the question of whether or not they should appear in this Bill?
Would it not be enough for him to satisfy himself—as I asked the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, during his speech a few minutes ago—that whatever was proposed did fall properly within the Long Title of this Bill, and then, providing that was so, to look at the amendment on the merits of the speeches made by noble Lords and see whether the amendment made a positive contribution to the position of deer or seals or what
1146
ever the case may be. If one looks at this amendment in the light of that principle, one asks, "Does it form a useful addition to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970?", not, "Is it a good idea for us to amend the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 on a piecemeal basis?" To use that argument seems to me to destroy any possibility that we have of amending other legislation by reference. It is, after all, a very well-established practice in the legislation of this country to refer back to previous Acts and to put in amendments by means of additional clauses or alterations to clauses already found there. If the Minister is to be empowered simply to reject any amendment which seeks to do this without addressing himself to the contents of the amendment, I do not think we are going to get very far. I hope the noble Earl will agree, on the same basis as he did with Lord Northfield's amendment, to take this amendment away, consider it and come back on Report stage with a more carefully thought out argument.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I hope my noble friend will stick to his original position. If questions under the Conservation of Seals Act are to be raised, I should have to raise the question of the number of seals encouraged by the National Trust. My noble friend Lord Ridley gave the statistics just now—from a comparatively small number to 8,000. They are causing great problems to the net fishers in the Tweed and the Forth, and to the rod fishers. I do not want that controversy to be imported into this Bill, but it will be if amendments like this are accepted. I have every sympathy for the flora and fauna the National Trust want to protect, but that is not the only question that concerns the Fame Islands. We should have much more controversy if my noble friend gave way to the request of the noble Lord.
Lord Craigton: This discussion this evening is part of the whole conservation movement throughout the world. You conserve a creature, and then you upset the balance of nature and so you get too many of them in many cases. We have done that in Parliament. We have conserved the seal. Now all we are seeking to do is to put right the imbalance by doing something the other way. I think that is entirely logical. I support the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I was assuming, as the Government wanted to take this amendment separately from my own amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act, that there was going to be a different attitude to it, and I was disappointed to hear what the noble Earl had to say. I withdrew my amendments because they were (a) not urgent, as the noble Viscount has made clear this amendment is, and (b) did not seem to me to raise sufficiently important enough points for me not to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Home. But although I thought his advice very valuable when he directed it at me, and I accepted it, I would urge the noble Viscount on this occasion not to accept it, and would support him in the amendment he has moved.
Earl Ferrers: I should just like to say that of course when any noble Lord puts down an amendment it is important to consider the merits of the amendment

1147
properly. But that is not the Government's only job. The Government have to try to ensure that such legislation as is produced is produced in as reasonable, as understandable and as convenient a fashion as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that one should address one's answer to the merits of the amendment as a whole. I have a great deal of sympathy with the merits of the admendment and I think that there could well be occasions when the amendment should be accepted. What I said to my noble friend who moved the amendment is wholly consistent with what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; namely, that I have no doubt that the day will come when we shall have to amend the Conservation of Seals Act because there are a number of points—and he produced some earlier on—which require amendment and alteration. I believe that that is the correct way to do it and not to amend it now, and then later on.
1148
Of course, in any conservation Bill such as this, one is conserving at the one moment seals and at the next moment flora and fauna, and there will, periodically, be a clash. I would only say to your Lordships that of course I accept and understand the meaning and the requirements behind the amendment. But I would ask your Lordships to consider that it is not appropriate, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said, to amend the Conservation of Seals Act in this way and at this moment, because it may well prove more controversial than expected.
Viscount Ridley: As I said earlier, this amendment has not been before your Lordships for very long—for only two or three days. There is no question whatever of my pressing it. However, I feel that it is possibly so important that it may be necessary to put it down again at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Mammals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods]:
10.3 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 51, line 22, at end insert—

("Seal, Common

Phoca vitulina

Seal, Grey

Halichoerus grypus").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 189 which adds to Schedule 6 the common seal and the grey seal. What is involved here is what the Government are doing to comply with the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats because both these species appear under Appendix III of that convention. The convention requires the contracting parties to prohibit or control the indiscriminate methods of capture and killing.
I understand that in the information paper produced by the Department of the Environment dated 28th August 1980, they had proposed, in conformity with the convention, to include both these species of seal in what is now Schedule 6 to the Bill. However, they changed their minds about that. Whether the noble Earl will argue again that it is better to deal with everything under the Conservation of Seals Act I do not know, but meanwhile, at any rate, these two species of seal will not be protected from various methods of killing which are in the convention and which are governing Schedule 6.
So at the moment the exclusion of these two species from Schedule 6 means that they are not receiving the protection which the convention said they should receive and which contracting parties are obliged to give. Therefore, they are exposed to methods of killing at present which Schedule 6 would stop, and if they are not included in Schedule 6 they will continue to be exposed to those methods until some other step is taken. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government want to comply with their international obligations, especially when they are in Europe.
Viscount Thurso: Is there not a misprint here because on page 51, line 22, the amendment would put seals in between saxifrage and sow-thistle?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is rather quicker off the mark than I am, but I shall certainly see whether there is a misprint. Perhaps I might reply to the noble Lord's amendment as a whole. The Government accept the need to continue to give statutory protection to the two British species of seal, the common seal and the grey seal, to which this amendment relates. But as the noble Lord knows, we have—we referred to it earlier this evening—the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, which, as I said, I thought it would be inappropriate to alter piecemeal. But in the Government's view this Act meets our obligations under the Berne Convention.
This does not mean, of course, that we would regard the Act as perfect or that the Government would countenance indiscriminate or cruel methods of killing seals. The fact is that the methods which are listed in Clause 11 are mainly of no relevance to seals or they are effectively prohibited by the 1970 Act. For ex
1150
ample, the Act prohibits the use of poison or shooting with other than a prescribed rifle; a method not expressly prohibited in the Act would be applicable only during a close season when the killing or taking of seals is prohibited, except under the licensing powers of the Secretary of State under the Act.
I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friends with responsibilities under the Act do not issue licences which would allow indiscriminate or cruel methods of killing. As I said earlier, I think that there may be an occasion later when the Conservation of Seals Act as a whole may be amended or reconstructed, but at the moment I think that it provides the protection which is required.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I am moderately satisfied with his reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 190:
Page 50, leave out line 37.
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove the red squirrel from Schedule 6. When I tabled Amendment No. 144 and this amendment I was under the mistaken impression that there was no need to include the red squirrel in Schedule 6 because it would be fully protected by its inclusion in Schedule 5. As a result of what the noble Earl said when I moved Amendment No. 144, I now realise that it should remain on Schedule 6 so that it may no longer be killed or taken by the methods specified in the Bill. Therefore, I do not wish to move this amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 193 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Protection of Wild Plants]:
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 13, line 22, leave out ("wild").
The noble Baroness said: We turn now to plants. Clause 12 deals with the protection of wild plants. I should like to move Amendment No. 194A and to speak to Amendment No. 195 at the same time. The purpose of these amendments is to facilitate enforcement of this part of the Bill. As drafted, the Bill allows the sale of protected plants provided that those offered for sale have been cultivated and are not wild plants as defined in Clause 25. This is desirable both in order to avoid any interruption in a long-established and respectable trade conducted by specialist nurserymen and because if, say, the Cheddar pink is obtainable from nurseries, there is less temptation to take it from the wild. Yet, as drafted, the Bill offers a dishonest nurseryman easy defence, for it will be almost impossible to prove that a plant offered for sale is taken from the wild unless the offender is actually caught in the act of uprooting it. The amendment would in effect restrict the right of sale to those able to establish that the plants offered are cultivated ones and not wild plants. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I must resist these amendments. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to extend the same offence to cultivated plants, which is one of the effects of these amendments. There are a number of reasons for this use, one of which is that cultivation increases the stock of plants available and does not diminish it. This is a form of conservation which we would not wish to jeopardise.
As to the proposed subsection (4), it appears to be designed to make it a defence in offences under Clause 12(1) to show that a plant was cultivated and not found wild. This is already the effect of referring in subsection (1) to a wild plant when one takes into account the definition of the expression "wild plant" in Clause 25 of the Bill. Indeed, subsection (1) goes further in so far as by virtue of the definition of "wild plant" you do not commit an offence if your action only relates to a cultivated plant, and thus you do not need the defence in such circumstances. In view of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I do not feel at all inclined to withdraw it because I am not convinced by what the noble Lord has said, but I should like to have time to study it and consider whether I am satisfied with the answer or whether I shall bring this back at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 to 197 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Plants which are protected]:
10.13 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 51, line 19, at end insert—

("Primrose, Scottish

Primula scotica").

The noble Duke said: This amendment is simple and I hope completely non-controversial. I hope that noble Lords on the Front Bench will be able to accept it. The Scottish primrose, primula scotica, is an extremely rare plant on the mainland of Scotland, although I must admit that it is quite common on Orkney, but so far as I know not on any of the other islands off Scotland. This amendment is supported by the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, whose emblem this plant is, and, I believe, the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland.
It would not cause any difficulties to any other plants if this amendment were accepted. So far as I am aware, it does not smother any other plants, or act in a nasty way towards any other plants or towards any animals, insects, crustaceans or anything else. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to accept this amendment, as it is important to protect what is one of the few uniquely Scottish plants. I beg to move.
Baroness David: May I issue a word of caution about accepting this amendment? This delightful plant is endemic to Scotland and is therefore included in the list of the International Union for the Conserva
1152
tion of Nature and Natural Resources. However, contradicting what the noble Duke said, it is fairly widespread and locally abundant along the north coast. It is very attractive and is coveted by gardeners, and the only reason why the botanical interests have not proposed the inclusion of primula scotica in Schedule 7 is that they are anxious that the list should not appear unmanageably long or merely arbitrary but should be confined to those plants which, on careful scrutiny, are seen to be really in danger; and because of its abundance, the Scottish primrose cannot be placed in that category. If there were room for an exception, it would of course have a strong claim for being on the RCUM list, but the botanists are anxious not to prejudice Schedule 7 by putting on it something which is not at this moment endangered.
Lord Inglewood: Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, we should at this time put in Schedule 7 all those plants which we feel are in danger. The suggestion that by putting more, rather than fewer, on the list we are weakening the whole position is, I believe, false. I support my noble friend. It is not often that someone who lives near the southern side of the border has the opportunity wholeheartedly of supporting some Scottish interest, but on this occasion I do. We should be careful to ensure that when the Bill leaves us the list is complete and does not have items left off it just because, by putting them on, it would be longer than some optimum in certain people's heads.
Baroness David: I was not suggesting that it would be longer than some people want but that what should be on it should be particularly endangered plants.
The Duke of Atholl: In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady David, I believe that recently its numbers in the north of the mainland of Scotland have decreased considerably due to a large extent to people taking it, as she rightly said, to put in their gardens; at least I presume that is why they take it. It is therefore important to get it into Schedule 7. She is of course right to say that in Orkney it is a fairly common plant, but Orkney is quite inaccessible and, as it disappears from the north of Scotland, we may find that it starts diminishing in Orkney too. I should be happier, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, if it could be put in Schedule 7 now, while locally in Orkney it is still reasonably common, rather than waiting for it to become rare in Orkney as well as on the mainland of Scotland.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am afraid I must ask the Committee to resist the amendment. We are advised by the Nature Conservancy Council in these matters and they advise that the Scottish primrose is not in danger, nor is it likely to become in danger of extinction. As my noble friend said, it is found widely on the northern coast of Scotland and in much of the Orkney Isles, and, although its distribution is relatively restricted, where it occurs it is abundant. There is therefore no need to afford it special protection. Further, I understand that, if this particular species were added to the list, there are probably several others which would come in the same category. Although, therefore, we

1153
shall take account of what my noble friend said, I must ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
The Duke of Atholl: I feel bound to withdraw the amendment because my noble friend said he would take account of what I had said. I believe that if he now refers the matter to the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland he will find that they are not averse to putting the Scottish primrose in Schedule 7, and I put it no higher than that. I shall probably return to this subject on Report, because I think the Minister will find, when he has taken the most recent soundings, that there has been a considerable decrease in the numbers of this plant in the north of Scotland, in Sutherland and Caithness, and that it may need protection so far as the mainland of Scotland is concerned, although, as I said, I agree that it is still fairly common in Orkney. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 51, line 30, at end insert—

("Alison, Small

Alyssum, Alyssoides

Broomrape, Bedstraw

Orobanche, Caryophyllacea

Broomrape, Oxtongue

Orobanche, Loricata

Broomrape, Thistle

Orobanche, Reticulata

Club-rush, Triangular

Scirpus, Triquetrus

Cow-wheat, Field

Melampyrum, Arvense

Cudweed, Jersey

Gnaphalium, Luteoalbum

Galingale, Brown

Cyperus, Fuscus

Hares'-ear, Sickle-leaved

Bupleurum, Falcatum

Hares'-ear, Small

Bupleurum, Baldense

Knotgrass, Sea

Polygonum, Maritimum

Lettuce, Least

Lactuca, Saligna

Leek, Round-headed

Allium, Sphaerocephalon

Marsh-mallow, Rough

Althaea, Hirsuta

Pear, Plymouth

Pyrus, Cordata

Pink, Childing

Petrorhagia, Nanteuilii

Sandwort, Norwegian

Arcnaria, Norvegica

Solomon's-seal, Whorled

Polygonatum, Verticillatum

Spurge, Purple

Euphorbia, Peplis

Violet, Fen

Viola, Persicifolia

Water-plantain, Ribbon leaved

Alisma, Gramineum

Wood-sedge, Starved

Carex, Depauperata

Wormwood, Field

Artemisia, Campestris

Yellow-rattle, Greater

Rhinanthus, Serotinus ").

The noble Lord said: I am now back on old, familiar ground. I had the great pleasure of piloting through your Lordships' House the Wild Plants Bill 10 years ago, which eventually, under the care of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, saw light as the Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, and which contained much of that original Bill. That Act enabled the special protection of a wild plant if it had become so rare that its status as a British plant was endangered by any action designated as an offence under the Act.
The Wildlife and Countryside Bill extends special protection, not only to endangered plants but to vulnerable ones as well. Clause 20 allows the Secretary of State, on representation by the Nature Conservancy Council, to add a plant which in his opinion is in danger of extinction in Great Britain. This is the definition of "endangered" used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. It also allows the Secretary of State to add a plant which is likely to
1154
become so endangered, and that is the definition of "vulnerable" used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. This latter phrase—the plant which is likely to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken—is to be welcomed, as the 1975 Act was limited to allowing only those species which are threatened primarily by collecting to be added to the schedule.
It is interesting to see how far we have moved on in public opinion: then, we thought it not diplomatic to add vulnerable plants to the lists in case it should endanger the whole Act, but now the Government have, I am delighted to say, accepted the principle. However, habitat loss may be the main reason and collecting only a secondary one. Collecting becomes a contributory factor as species decline, become rare and, as I was saying about an animal earlier on, people want to grab it before it disappears. A plant in this situation can now be added to the schedule. The list of the species in the 1975 Act was compiled from the best information available at the time, but before the publication of the British Red Data book on vascular plants. A new edition of this important bible of plant status is in preparation, and the up-to-date information used for this new edition, although not yet published, has been available in compiling this list.
The plants added to the schedule by the Government—those are the plants which will be found already in Schedule 7 and included in the printed Bill—are of mixed status. Some of them are vulnerable, some of them are endangered, and there are several of both. But it is a strange list because while it accepts vulnerable species to the schedule, it does not accept all the endangered species which are identified in the Red Data book; and at the stage where the Government have accepted the fact that it is necessary to protect species before they are on the verge of extinction, vulnerable, it would seem unreasonable not at least to include all the plants recognised as endangered. Probably further work is needed before other vulnerable plants are added. That may be necessary, but it is something which can be done afterwards. Surely, however, at this stage all endangered plants should he added.
The amendment which stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, brings about this rationalisation. It includes all the remaining endangered plants now included in the Red Data book except for arable weeds and obvious aliens. The list of the species in the amendment has been discussed with the Botanical Society of the British Isles and the National Conservancy Council, as well as the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. I understand that the NCC are happy to support their addition. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Schedule 7 is based on advice from the Nature Conservancy Council given to the Secretary of State and required by Section 12 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. The NCC provided this advice in July. Since then they have had further information about the distribution or scarcity of the plants which are the subject of this amendment. It is their view that these plants are equally deserving of protection. I am happy to accept the Nature Conservancy Council's advice.

1155
Unfortunately, so far as the amendment is concerned, the items are listed in alphabetical order beginning with "A", and the amendment would insert them after the "Ws" in Schedule 7, as drafted. I am afraid that the items listed in the amendment will have to be properly integrated with the items in the existing schedule if the reader is not to be misled. Accordingly, I undertake to put down a suitable Government amendment at a later stage. I trust that in the light of this undertaking the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness David: As my name, too, is put to this amendment, may I say how grateful I am that it has been accepted. I quite understand that it will have to be put in the right order. May I ask that the three commas in the Latin names be removed and that the spelling of "artermisia" be corrected?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: No doubt that will be attended to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am grateful to the Government for accepting this amendment and very happy to leave to them the business of working out in what alphabetical order this list should appear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: May I at this stage, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, reiterate something that I said when we came back after the dinner adjournment? I think that the House at that moment—whether we were unduly punctual or not—was not very full. I did make a special plea that, as we had arranged to stop at a definite time rather than at a definite place in the Bill, we could proceed with some speed. I know that since then there have been some matters over which people feel very strongly and which have been debated very fully; but I wonder whether I could repeat that we have approximately two hours more available tonight and I should be most grateful if we could do as much as possible in that time.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On this side, we have hardly opened our mouths since dinner.
Lord Denham: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I was not casting stones in any direction.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Introduction of new species etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
10.28 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 13, line 31, at end insert ("imports with the intention of releasing or allowing to escape, or").
The noble Lord said: In this clause we come to the restrictions on introducing new species. This particular part of the clause deals with the introduction of wild animals which in the wild state are not ordinarily
1156
resident in or regular visitors to Great Britain. The purpose of my amendment is to try to make this part of the clause at least look as if it might work. At the moment it seems to me that the clause as drafted in the Bill strikes at the problem well after the damage has been done and much too late in the day. I realise that the problem with having the sort of restriction on imports that I have drafted is that at the time of import it is difficult to know what the person's intention is; but the fact is that a great deal of the legislation we have for protecting wildlife in this country is very difficult to enforce. Even some of the things which one might think would be relatively easy to enforce (like the restrictions on poison which we discussed earlier this evening) are difficult in practice to enforce. One of the things we looked at—and we will be coming to an amendment on this later—when this House passed the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, was the importance that these types of legal provisions have in the sense of being declaratory or educational. That is why that Act has a provision which is repeated in the Bill about giving information to young people about what the provisions of the Act contain. It is in that spirit that I should like the Government to consider this amendment. When this problem of the introduction of the new species was originally considered by the Nature Conservancy Council, my understanding was that they would have liked to see some prohibition on import. Once the species which are going to cause havoc to our native fauna have got into the country it is a bit late to start saying, "Careful that does not get out", or, "If you let it out we are going to fine you £50 or take you to the magistrates' court".
Where one wants to have some control on things which are going to be a pest, a menace or highly destructive to agriculture, forestry or native flora or fauna is at the point when they enter the country. The difficulty with that, as I understand it, and the reason why it is not in the Bill at the moment—and the noble Lord will no doubt enlighten me on this—is because people think that it will be difficult to enforce. I accept that. But nevertheless it seems to me important that we should make clear in this Bill—and the Act when it becomes law—that what we want is for people not to import into this country species of animals which will be highly destructive to our native flora or fauna or to agriculture, forestry or other commercial interests. It is really that part of the problem to which my amendment is directed. I hope that, notwithstanding the difficulties of enforcement, something of this sort can be included in the Bill.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has more or less answered his point for me. The great difficulty is the fact that if somebody imports something, unless they actually make a confession that they are importing it for a particular reason, you simply do not know why they are importing it. In our view, the amendment would add nothing to the existing provisions of Clause 13 because the intention to release or allow an escape could not be proved without a confession, which is unlikely to be forthcoming, or unless a release or an escape has actually taken place, in which case the provisions of Clause 13 as currently drafted would apply.
Lord Avebury: Do we not manage to enforce prohibitions on the import of dogs and cats, and are not people sometimes prosecuted for bringing them in unlawfully?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: That is quite true, yes.
Lord Melchett: If I might help the noble Lord a little, I tried to answer the point because I know the argument against the amendment. I do not think the case is quite so bad as the noble Lord is making out. There has recently been a campaign launched to reintroduce the beaver into this country. It seems to me not likely, knowing some of those who have been interested in this, but in theory it is possible that somebody might take it into their heads that this was a very good idea and they would get hold of some beavers and say, "I am going to bring them into the country and release them". They would not make any secret of it. At the moment under the Bill we would not be able to do anything about that until after the beavers had been imported.
It would seem good sense and reasonable to make it an offence actually to import under those conditions. Also it seems to me quite possible, even if somebody did not confess, that the situation might become apparent after somebody had imported something and was keeping it in a zoo or in a private collection quite legitimately. Some documentary evidence might come to light which showed that the motive for the import was not to keep it in their private collection but ultimately to release it, to the great damage of agriculture, forestry or some other interest. In those circumstances, this kind of prohibition would be useful.
I know the arguments against it, but it seems to me that there is quite a lot to be said in its favour. I wonder whether, in the light of what has been said, it would be possible for the noble Lord to take this away and have another look at it.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I should like to complete what I was going to say before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, intervened. In so far as the intention of the amendment is to set up a system of import control and make it an offence to import certain animals, it should be pointed out that that system would be very costly to set up and run. We do not see a need to control importation as such. Many of the animals concerned would be perfectly acceptable so long as they remained in captivity. However, I have absolute sympathy for what the noble Lord is trying to get at. I see the point. I think there are difficulties, but we are certainly prepared to consider this matter, though without any commitment of any sort.
Lord Melchett: I accept that. I do not think that the argument about cost is a good one, if I may say so, because as I understand it all live animals that are imported into this country would in any event be subject to such stringent checks. I think, for instance, of birds which would be so checked, because of the danger of importing various diseases involving domestic poultry and so on. It would be necessary to check the kind of animals we are talking about—non-native animals—because of the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. We shall be coming on to that and the
1158
question of the need for better enforcement as well as the hope that there will be restricted ports of entry for such creatures. But it does not seem to me that any additional checks, more bureaucracy, or extra manpower would be needed at ports of entry in relation to live animals. Non-native species coming into this country ought anyhow to be very carefully scrutinised and checked. The noble Lord has said that he will look at this matter without commitment. I would not ask for anything more at this stage, and in the light of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 13, line 38, after ("person") insert ("imports,").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 204 and 206, and at the same time I wish to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, No. 205, and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, No. 207. As drafted the Bill seems to us to go too far in attempting to introduce consistency between the regulations for plants and those for animals. The natural and accidental escape of a plant seed over a garden hedge is of a wholly different category from the deliberate release of a mink or coypu; and in general an introduced plant is likely to do infinitely less damage than an introduced animal. For those reasons, and because enforcement is virtually impossible, we join with our noble friend Lord Kilbracken in supporting the deletion of this provision; that is, lines 40 and 41 on page 13.
Because, however, there may later be occasions when it would be desirable specifically to prohibit the introduction of certain plants, we are anxious to retain the reference to Schedule 8. At present that schedule contains no flowering plants, but only a seaweed, the notorious "japweed", Sargassum. It may well be that some flowering plants, for example, the giant hogweed, will be found to be as great a pest as the seaweed. They can then be added to the schedule, which will automatically prohibit their introduction, and, if our amendment to line 38 is accepted, their importation. For that reason we would not go along with the amendment of our noble friend Lord Kilbracken relating to subsection (1)(b).
With regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, we are worried about the question of the provision being enforceable. We think that his amendment would make enforcement more difficult because in a way it strengthens the clause. We think that his amendment would make the matter even more difficult and therefore more unrealistic. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Dealing with Amendment No. 204, I would say that we consider that there are not adequate reasons to justify import controls in relation to plants. They would involve considerable expense, and, because of the difficulty of detecting the seeds and cuttings, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce effectively. There would have to be extremely strong reasons to support the introduction of such controls, and we are not at the moment convinced of the need. I may say that Kew Gardens

1159
agrees with us, so I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: I wonder whether the noble Lord would go on and answer the other amendments so that I could reply to them all together.
Lord Craigton: I have not moved my amendment yet.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The controls over the introduction of plants into the wild which are contained in the Bill should apply to all non-native varieties as well as to certain plants which have become established. The Government consider that the introduction of any new species into the wild needs to be justified. British wildlife has not suffered much to date as the result of floral introductions but our good fortune cannot be guaranteed in the future without controls, and Clause 13(2)(a) is intended to prevent problems occurring as a result of introductions. The proposed amendment would remove the blanket coverage of the introduction of new plants. It would not be practicable to extend Schedule 8 so as to list all those species whose introduction ought to be controlled. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.
Lord Avebury: If the noble Lord thinks it is going to be difficult to control the import of cuttings or seeds, how does he propose to enforce this provision—when persons might be scattering these seeds or planting these cuttings anywhere throughout the country? Is he going to have an army of inspectors operating throughout the National Trust lands and all public open spaces, to make sure that people are not planting seeds brought in from Sardinia or Corsica?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: There would be absolutely no way of doing that.
Baroness David: Therefore it seems to me that this is a very difficult clause to operate. I quite appreciate the difficulty about catching the imports as they come in. The whole problem about this part of the clause is how to define precisely enough the terms of this subsection to allow it to be enforced. How do you define a plant of a kind which does not ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state? The snowdrop has been with us for at least 300 years, but most botanists would say that it was an introduced and not a native plant. The same is true of many of our trees, such as the sycamore and the horse chesnut. Even if these were allowed honorary British citizenship, one still has to decide how many times an alien plant has to be found and in what habitats before it can be said to be ordinarily growing here.
Then what of the phrase "in the wild" which is used in subsection (2)? As I said on Second Reading, a large proportion of this country has at one time or other and to some extent been cultivated. When is it wild and when is it not wild? At what point do motorway verges, which are rapidly becoming one of our most valuable wildlife habitats, graduate into being "wild"? At what point can reclaimed tips and dumps be said to revert to the wild? The com
1160
plications are endless. Motorway cuttings are first sprayed in a mass production operation with seed mixtures containing many plants which are not native to Britain. When they are sown they are not wild and all is in order. But what is the situation when these plants seed themselves beyond the boundary of the motorway? Is the highway authority guilty of an offence in allowing them to do so?
The tree lupin, which is not native to Britain, has proved invaluable in the reclamation of china clay tips, but it is a prolific seeder and rapidly colonises the ground beyond the tips. Is its use to be banned because of this? Will those of your Lordships who continue to allow the common rhododendron to escape out of your policies be liable to prosecution? And what of those who plant gaultheria for their pheasants in what is at least semi-natural woodland? We are urged to replace our vanished elms with Japanese elms—a tree of whose performance, under our conditions, next to nothing is yet known. Will that be legal or illegal? In the face of all these queries the Government, if they are to insist on banning introduced plants, really must make the position clearer.
Lord Kilbracken: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a question. I should like to concentrate first on Amendment No. 203, which has to be considered, among other things, together with Amendment No. 206, to leave out lines 40 and 41. If that is done, it seems to me that we are left with a rather curious subsection (2), which would read:
"Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person imports, plants or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which—
(b) is included in Part II of Schedule 8, he shall be guilty of an offence",
and in Part II of Schedule 8 we have only the Japanese seaweed.
Baroness David: If I may answer, I think I said that this was a precaution. We have only one plant in it at the moment, but there might suddenly develop other plants. I think I mentioned the giant hogweed, which could become a pest and could be added to Schedule 8. So it is a valuable precaution to have Schedule 8 there in case.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I quite see the difficulty. It is very difficult to give a definition of what is "wild" and of which plants are "in the wild". On the other hand, it is something which has been used in a number of other Bills and is really understood by everybody. It is just jolly difficult to put it into words. I think the noble Baroness knows what "in the wild" means as well as I do. We have had legal advice on this, because the noble Baroness very kindly told us that she would raise this point. Perhaps I may just read out what it says:
"The legal advice is that the concept is one which everyone understands but which is difficult, if not impossible, to define satisfactorily, and that it should be left to the court to decide".
Baroness David: I think that is very weak law. If we are making a law like that, it is very weak indeed.
Lord Avebury: If the noble Baroness was going to pursue this at Report stage, what would be a more

1161
convenient way of arranging it would be not to have the single plant, to which the section would then be applicable, contained in Part II of Schedule 8, but to give the Secretary of State an order-making power so that he could add any plant which might become a threat in the future, without the necessity of amending legislation.
Baroness David: I think he has that power.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: There is such a power in the Bill.
Baroness David: I should like to look at this again. I feel that we are in rather a hurried state tonight, and I should not like to withdraw the amendment without saying that I shall reserve the right to come back on Report, if I think that proper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("causes to grow in the wild any plant") and insert ("by his unreasonable inaction permits or causes the growth in the wild of any plant").
The noble Lord said: The way I should like to see this clause worded is:
"…if any person plants or otherwise by his unreasonable inaction permits or causes the growth in the wild of any plant".
Because of the way the clause is drafted, if Japanese seaweed appears in my little patch of water I need do nothing at all about it, except that I must not plant it. I believe that it should be an offence to stand idly by and watch it grow. That is all my amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. We have the classic and terrible case of the so-called Siberian wallflower which, I believe, was brought to a London suburban garden just over 100 years ago and has spread throughout Great Britain. It is now the most appalling pest and weed, which spreads so easily. The person who brought it in would not, I think, have been liable under this clause as it now stands, and it should be strengthened.
Lord Kilbracken: It is a very difficult part of the Bill to understand. In the next amendment we come to the question of lines 40 and 41. I simply do not understand why there should be a ban on the growing in the wild of all plants—there may be exceptions—which do not ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state. I am sure that we shall have examples of this when the next amendment is moved, but what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is saying is that not by our unreasonable inaction must we permit or cause the growth in the wild of any plant. We may not plant it. Presumably the seed can be sown, which is an action rather than inaction, but we must not permit it by our unreasonable inaction. I do not understand what the noble Lord is getting at.
Lord Craigton: The phrase, as worded, is "if any person plants or otherwise causes to grow in the wild."
1162
I have used exactly the same words: "causes the growth in the wild". I can see no difference. It is the allowing of it, by his unreasonable inaction, to go on growing.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am not sure that the noble Lord is doing exactly what he means to do by the amendment. If he removes the words "causes to grow in the wild any plant" and replaces them by his amendment, anybody can take action without trouble, but they are in difficulty with inaction. I think that is what the noble Lord opposite was saying. We have sympathy with the idea, but it is a very difficult one to enforce. Anybody who sees Japanese seaweed somewhere should get their gumboots on and deal with it as quickly as possible. But I do not think you can force anyone to do so. It is for that reason that we do not agree with the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Craigton: Can I not persuade the noble Lord to have a look at it? I agree that my drafting may be faulty. It is a very tricky point, but am Ito stand idly by and watch this happen? Can I not be rapped over the knuckles?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I think it is a marvellous example, but I do not think anybody can force you to do so. And many people would not know what Japanese seaweed was if they saw it.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: Can I help my noble friend by suggesting a possible transposition in the drafting so that it reads: "a person who causes, or by his unreasonable inaction permits"? Would that solve the problem?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We will look at it again, but "unreasonable inaction" is a pretty vague expression. The amendment would need a good deal of tidying up.
Lord Renton: The operative word is "permits". If that could be introduced into the clause it would strengthen it.
Lord Craigton: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 206:
Page 13, leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 206. I do not move it, but make the proviso that I might come back to it at Report.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 14, line 2, leave out ("or (2)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, to leave out "or (2)" in line 14, would not wholly have been consequential upon Amendment No. 206. Subsection (37) says that
"it shall be a defence to a charge of committing an offence under subsection (1) or (2) to prove that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence".
The offence that we have is to grow in the wild certain types of plant. My point is simply that I do not see how it is possible unintentionally to cause a plant to grow. One can unintentionally release an animal but I suggest one cannot unintentionally cause a plant to grow. There are no reasonable steps to take or there is no due diligence that one ought to show to avoid the growing of a plant, and therefore that subsection should only relate to subsection (1) and not to subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I do not think I can help the noble Lord in this particular matter. It may, on the face of it, seem strange for anyone who has deliberately planted a non-native plant in the wild, or otherwise caused it to grow there, to claim that he had exercised all due diligence. However, it is possible to imagine circumstances in which someone causes a non-native plant to grow in the wild in the reasonable belief that it is an unexceptional native plant—for example, as the consequence of being wrongly advised by an expert, or because he has ordered seeds or plants and has been supplied in error with a proscribed variety. We do not think it equitable that, in such circumstances, a person should be guilty of an offence.
Lord Kilbracken: I think that is rather a curious explanation, but I should like to think about it and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.57 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert (", except that a person shall not be entitled to this defence if the other person was at the material time his servant.").
The noble Baroness said: The principle of responsibility for illegal action taken by others was discussed when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley (who I see has now gone), moved Amendment No. 59 last week. I said then that we have a slightly stronger amendment dealing with this later in the Bill, but I think I should now say that the two situations—the one he dealt with and the one I am now dealing with—are not quite the same. We consider that an employer should be entirely responsible for what his employee does on his land, whether it be a market garden or a zoo, and that he should make it perfectly clear what the law is and that he expects it to be observed. We are not saying that the landowner or market gardener would try to put the blame on his servant; what we want to do is to establish firmly on the landowner the responsibility for what goes on on his land. As I said last week, other Acts of Parliament like the Health and Safety at Work Act put the responsibility firmly on the employer, and what we want to have is a better chance of the law being observed and being enforceable. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We do not accept this amendment. It is clearly designed to prevent an
1164
employer relying on the "due diligence" defence in Clause 13(3) in a case where an offence is committed by his servant. It ought not to follow that because a servant has committed an offence his employer is automatically at fault. I am not satisfied in the present case that it would be right to prevent an employer relying on the "due diligence" defence in cases where he has not personally committed an offence. I think it is against British justice, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: For once I should like to agree with the Minister, and in doing so make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that my noble friend Lord Beaumont has not left but is merely outside the Chamber for a moment consulting on some of his later amendments. If he were here I think he would probably want to say that the employer should not be held responsible in an unlimited way, such as the noble Baroness is proposing, for the acts of his servant.
One can envisage all sorts of ways in which an employee might do things for which it would be totally unreasonable to hold the employer responsible. For example, if an employee, without telling his employer, plants some of the plants covered by the schedule, or plants which do not normally grow in the wild, he might on his own initiative take steps to see that such plants bloomed on the employer's land for reasons of his own which had nothing to do with the terms and conditions of his employment. Or certainly he might have done that without any instructions from the employer; the employer might even have given direct instructions that he should abide by the terms of this clause, although it is difficult to imagine that all landowners as soon as this Bill reaches the statute book will immediately issue a notice to their employees saying they are to abide by the terms of this clause and not bring in wild plants of any kind. I think it would be unreasonable to expect landowners to do that. But if the act of the servant is one done without the knowledge of the employer and not in accordance with his instructions, I do think that in all fairness it should be a defence for him to prove that he has not given instructions and the employee has acted without his knowledge.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Employers have a very bad time these days, what with the Protection of Employment Act and various other Acts. You may give your employees instructions but you cannot ensure that they are carried out. I think it would be very unfair on employers to have this amendment carried.
Lord Melchett: I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said and it did not seem to me that what he was proposing was what the Bill is proposing. I find it very difficult to see how subsections (3) and (4) fit together, but, as I understand it, under subsection (3) you have to show that you took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. But then, under subsection (4), so long as the offence is committed by somebody else you do not have to show due diligence or take all reasonable steps; that provides a

1165
complete defence. That was not what Lord Avebury was suggesting. It does seem to me that there should be some duty on an employer to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure not only that he does not commit the offence but also that his employee does not. That does not seem to me unreasonable. It may not be exactly what our amendment would achieve, but nevertheless it seems to me to be a reasonable point.
After all, if we are talking about somebody who has brought an animal into this country which is liable to do maybe millions of pounds-worth of damage, and might be an enormous threat to agriculture, forestry or other interests, and he keeps the animal in premises where he employs somebody to look after it, it does seem reasonable for that employer to have some fairly high standards of care and responsibility placed on him, and he should not simply be able to say, "Well, I had somebody looking after it; it is nothing to do with me; that is a complete defence. Goodbye". He was responsible for bringing the animal or plant into the country. I do not think it is good enough for him to be able to say, "My servant was responsible for it getting out and doing all this damage, and that is me out of it, lads!" It may be that our amendment does not meet that point, but I do not think the Bill is anything like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested it was.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think it is an awful pity that we have no lawyer here. There must be hundreds of cases making this clear in English law; it must have happened again and again.
The Earl of Onslow: I have a strong suspicion that, if somebody employs someone to look after an animal and the animal escapes and causes considerable damage, he is liable in civil law for damage done by his servant.
Baroness David: Clearly, we are not all satisfied with subsections (3) and (4). I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to look at those two subsections again in the light of our amendment, and perhaps we could come back to the matter later? If so, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am afraid that I am not prepared to do that. I do not agree with the amendment at all. I think that the idea of pinning on the employer something which has been done by his employee—unless it can be proved that there was some collusion between the two—is not a correct procedure, and I would not accept the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I think that I have read subsections (3) and (4) fairly carefully, although I am not a lawyer but only a humble engineer. The beginning of subsection (4) reads:
"Where the defence provided by subsection (3) involves an allegation"
and so on. So we are postulating the case where a charge is brought against an employer or landowner for having committed an offence under subsections (1) or (2), and the employer then says: "I did not plant this object", or, "I did not bring this animal into this country and allow it to take its domicile on my land. I have found that it was, in fact, an employee
1166
of mine who did this." Then the subsection goes on to say that if the employer says that to the court he must, within a period of seven days, have given information to the prosecutor which will assist him in identifying the employee or servant in question.
So, the employer is not relieved of the obligation of taking all reasonable steps and exercising due diligence, as has already been provided in subsection (3)—he is, in fact, using that as the defence—but there is laid upon him an additional obligation of providing this information to the prosecutor as well as having to establish before the court that he has exercised proper care and due diligence.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that we ought to spend too long on this matter. I find the interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the Bill entirely acceptable. I wonder whether to shorten the matter we could simply ask the Government, when Hansard is printed, to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, has said, and to write us a brief letter confirming that that is the correct interpretation, or, if not, telling us how their interpretation differs, and then we can come back to the matter if we need to do so?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am very happy to do that.
Baroness David: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
11.7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to raise two small points. First, I note that the penalty under Clause 19 for contravening this part of the Bill could be a two-year prison sentence. I wonder whether that is in fact appropriate, and whether my noble friend will look at the matter and perhaps let me know the Government's reason for such a penalty. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will do so at the Report stage.
The other point, which perhaps has been covered and I have failed to grasp, is whether my noble friend can tell me whether there is anything in the Bill that could control, and indeed stop for that matter, anyone introducing indigenous species, particularly pests, into an area of the country in which they are non-existent. I can give two examples. The first example is putting rabbits into, say, the north of Scotland where they have almost died out; and the other example—and this happened twice about 10 or 15 years ago—is introducing foxes into Anglesey and, indeed, greylag geese. Maybe there is not an answer to that last question, but perhaps there is an answer to my first question.
Lord Middleton: In supporting what my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has just said as regards penalties, I must admit that from time to time I become consumed with fury and exasperation at the sight of young sycamores and beeches stripped of their bark and killed by grey squirrels. When I make plans to replant these areas of hard woods that I thought I had got nicely established after 10 and very often 20

1167
years, there are times when I feel that the appropriate penalty for the introducer of grey squirrels from America—his name escapes me for the moment, but if he was the grandfather of one of my noble friends I apologise—would have been hanging, followed by drawing and then quartering!
This is the kind of danger that arises from a pest species and the kind of damage envisaged in Clause 13. But however exasperating, however damaging it may be, and however much one would like to prevent this type of introduction of an alien species and all the consequences that can ensue, is this the kind of offence where imprisonment is appropriate? Our prisons are seriously overcrowded and they have been for years. Magistrates and judges are being urged to use alternatives to prison when there is no need to lock up the offender for the protection of the public. I think that I am right in saying that an offence under Clause 13 would be a new offence carrying imprisonment and I, too, wonder whether heavy fining in bad cases would not be a sufficient deterrent. Perhaps the Government might think about that.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to prolong this debate, but bearing in mind the injunction of the noble Lord the Chief Whip to us, we have a number of amendments on Clause 19 which deal with the level of penalties, so would it not be simpler to deal with this matter then?
Lord Middleton: I have made the point; I do not intend to raise it again on Clause 19.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I shall be happy to write to my noble friend, and therefore perhaps we could move on.
Clause 13 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Animals and plants to which Section 13 applies which are established in the wild]:
11.12 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 51, leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Duke said: We now move on to the schedule which goes with Clause 13 and lists those animals which, although they exist in this country, cannot be released into the wild. Animals are taken in the broadest sense of the word in that most of the species listed are, in fact, birds, but that does not matter.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment No. 210 and speak to Amendments Nos. 211, 213, 215, 218, 220, 221, 222 and 224, which are all amendments to this schedule. I do not propose to move those amendments down in my name—and I think that one is in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook—unless any noble Lord indicates now that he wishes to speak about a particular species. However, I have tabled the amendments to try to clarify the rationale behind the choice of animals included in Schedule 8.
Some of the animals, such as the American mink, the black rat and the grey squirrel, are clearly pests and, therefore, I think that we would all deplore the intro
1168
duction of any further species of these animals into the wild. But other species, such as the budgerigar—and here I come particularly to Amendment No. 210—appear to be totally harmless; indeed, there are homing budgerigars which —, personally, regard as a rather attractive feature of many gardens. These budgerigars fly more or less at will around the gardens. I imagine that if we continue to have homing budgerigars, once the Bill becomes law we shall be breaking the law because I can see no way in which exceptions to this clause, Clause 13, can come under the licensing provisions of Clause 15. Therefore, I would very much hope that the budgerigar in particular would be taken out of this schedule.
I also think that this schedule is unsuitable for the capercaillie. Capercaillies are very difficult to rear in captivity. I have tried. I tried to rear some for the Game Fair when it was last in Scotland and totally failed. I wish very good luck to people who can rear them in captivity. Having reared them in captivity, you obviously want to release them into the wild to try to increase the number of capercaillie in the wild. I agree that the Forestry Commission does not like capercaillie, and I suspect that that is the reason why capercaillie are in this schedule.
But, personally, I think that a little damage to woods is well worth while when you see a bird as magnificent as the cock capercaillie in flight. I would ask my noble friends to give the rationale behind this schedule and whether they would, in particular, consider removing the budgerigar from it. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: When moving that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill, it seemed that Schedule 8 included creatures, such as the coypu, of which we certainly should not wish further releases into the wild. Your Lordships have clearly realised that, as well as containing such undesirables as the coypu, mink and grey squirrel, Schedule 8 also included others which many of us regard as having enriched our natural fauna—the capercaillie, ruddy duck and Lady Amherst's pheasant, for example. What possible harm can follow the release of further specimens of these species? Let us take the ruddy duck. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote from Sir Peter Scott:
"Having been carelessly responsible myself for allowing the North American ruddy duck to escape and build up to what seems to be a small but viable population in England, I am in no position to pass judgement on others. To be sure the ruddy duck is decorative and apparently harmless but no one can know the insidious effect it may have on the ecological web ".
In framing Clause 13 and Schedule 8 our basic principle has been that no introduction of an exotic species, or reintroduction of a formerly native species into the wild, should take place without proper consideration of the ecological implications, and that there should be provision for monitoring any introduction which may be effected. Clause 13(1)(a) deals with species of animals not presently found in Britain, and Clause 13(1)(b) and Schedule 8 deal with already introduced and reintroduced species whose further spread the Government wish to control and monitor.
We are not aware of any benefits of introducing budgerigars into the wild which would justify a breach of this fundamental principle and the exemption of budgerigars from the controls proposed. Budgerigars

1169
have shown themselves to be capable of nesting and forming colonies in the wild. We recognise that past introductions of budgerigars into the wild have not resulted in serious disruptions of existing ecosystems and that large numbers have escaped without maintaining long-term viable populations; and this in itself brings another dimension into our thinking. Should we not have some regard to the effect on the introduced species? Both grounds—the effect on the ecology and the effect on the species—justify controls and both would be taken into account in considering applications for licences to release.
The case of the capercaillie is rather different from that of the budgerigar. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, will know, the capercaillie is unique in being the only successful reintroduction to Britain by man of a species in the British fauna. I appreciate that some noble Lords may have difficulty in understanding why the Government should wish to include the capercaillie in Schedule 8. The reason is that we arc concerned about the effects of introducing capercaillie into areas outside their present range because of the damage they can cause to the trees on whose buds and young shoots they feed. We take the view that further introductions of these birds should be carried out only under licence in suitable areas. I find it difficult to speak to the noble Duke, who has so much greater knowledge than I on these points, but that is the Government's view, which I hope the noble Duke will accept.
The Duke of Atholl: May I ask my noble friend one question? Under what clause of the Bill does the licensing system come? It does not seem to come under Clause 15. Clause 15(1) says that Sections 1 to 8 do not apply; 15(2) says Sections 9 to 12, and 15(3) says,
"Section 13 does not apply to anything done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority".
This presumably is the NCC.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I thought it did come under Clause 15.
The Duke of Atholl: The noble Lord is quite right. It does come under Clause 15.
Lord Melchett: The Government are talking more about the general principle than the particular species to which reference has been made, and they are right to adopt that attitude. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, spoke of the damage grey squirrels do to young trees, and that must have been enough to remind us how important it is to be careful about the introduction of non-native species. Although the budgie and capercaillie may not appear to be enormous threats just now, it is worth remembering the story of the collared dove. Birds can change in their behaviour, distribution, breeding successes in certain climates and so on. Indeed, I understand that the starling, for example, became widespread only in the 18th century, prior to which it had an extremely limited and restricted range in this country. Then something happened, much as it did with the collared dove—which we do not understand very well, if at all—and then it became
1170
a bird with an enormously high population capable of doing damage.
Whether the budgie is likely to do that in view of the sort of winters we have in Britain, I do not know. But there have been other species which one would not expect to behave in that way, such as various parrots which have proved capable of breeding and living through very cold winters—a group of parrots have managed to do that in New York—and they can then become a considerable pest and a threat to native birds. I therefore support in general the approach the Government are adopting.
Viscount Ridley: I support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl in regard to the capercaillie, a magnificent bird which, as the Minister said, was previously a native bird which died out and was reintroduced, possibly by one of the noble Duke's ancestors. It has been very successfully reintroduced and is one of the most magnificent birds of our native fauna and many people may like to see it established in southern Scotland or northern England as the vast coniferous forests grow up. If it did become a pest it could easily be controlled, and I think it would be quite wrong to include it in the schedule.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Why is the mandarin duck included here? It has been in this country a very long time and is a very beautiful duck. Its numbers have not increased and many people have it on their lakes. It flies around and is perfectly harmless and I cannot see why it should be included.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We will be dealing with that on the next amendment.
Lord Renton: I, too, support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl because this schedule causes great difficulty. I think it is over-zealous and schizophrenic. On the one hand, it attempts to deal with known pests like the mink, coypu and so on, and on the other, it assumes that birds and animals which are not frequently found at the moment might become so. If the thinking underlining the schedule had been in operation some hundreds of years ago we would not have had the common pheasant introduced into this country, and probably not the red-legged partridge, either. I implore the Government to think again about the schedule, which I think would be unenforceable for the most part.
The Earl of Onslow: If my noble friend Lord Ridley wants to introduce on to his property in Northumberland the capercaillie from Perthshire, is that prosecutable, or is it prosecutable only if he introduces the capercaillie from Norway?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord is absolutely free to introduce capercaillie from wherever he likes so long as he can get a licence.
The Duke of Atholl: Before withdrawing the amendment, may I ask my noble friend to tell me the position about homing budgerigars? Many people keep them. They fly around their gardens and at night come into their cages, shut up to be kept safe from the foxes

1171
which have avoided the snares which no doubt have been set in those gardens. It seems that it will be difficult to keep these very attractive birds. Those who keep them are prepared to suffer a certain amount of damage to their fruit—come to think of it, I am not sure budgies eat fruit; they may be entirely insect eaters—and I cannot see how the Government intend to overcome this problem. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, the schedule is over-zealous in terms of many of the animals it includes. I should very much like the Government to reconsider it. Perhaps, if my noble friend could answer about horning budgerigars, I will then withdraw the amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I ask a question about this? I must say that I find it desperately confusing. The rubric says, "Introduction of new species etc.". We are then faced with subsection (1) of the clause —and one is bound to look back to it—which says:
"… if any person releases or allows to escape into the wild any animal …".
We are not talking about the capercaillie, which is in the wild and which I do not suppose could live otherwise than in the wild. I really do not know what we are talking about. If I understand this correctly, everybody would have to go around and shoot all the capercaillie in the country, because otherwise the law could not possibly be complied with. I wonder whether my noble friend, either now or at the next stage, would be prepared to tell your Lordships exactly what restrictions are required here, bearing in mind that the capercaillie is there and that it breeds in the wild. What is this about? I think there are many noble Lords who would be very sorry to see the capercaillie unduly restricted, and to keep it out of the wild seems to be a wholly undue restriction.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Before my noble friend responds to that, perhaps I may say that I agree absolutely with what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said about the capercaillie, but I would be equally horrified if some noble Lord who had a grey squirrel farm were for some extraordinary reasons to go around distributing them further afield than they are already, although they are actually in the wild. So I do not think that the fact that something is in the wild already should stop us discouraging people from letting out more. I think the capercaillie is a case on its own.
Earl Waldergrave: May I add one other thing? Surely the words "allows to escape" are dangerous in regard to creating an offence. If you have your budgerigars in the house and you allow them to escape, who will ever prove that?
Lord Drumalbyn: We are at the moment, are we not, talking about two separate items? I think we shall get into trouble if we talk about the whole clause together.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The budgerigar is not a wild bird, anyhow.
The Duke of Atholl: I am still not happy about the budgerigar, I must admit. I should like to give your
1172
Lordships a little further history about the capercaillie. It died out as a native species in this country in the middle of the 18th century. It was reintroduced by the then Lord Breadalbane at Taymouth Castle in 1828, and it has flourished to a greater or lesser degree, in that it has never needed another reintroduction, since 1828, I think. As far as I know, in that amount of time it may have done a little bit of damage but I feel that if it had had any really nasty tendencies they would have come out by now. After all, it has been here for over a century and a half.
I feel that to put birds such as capercaillie and budgerigars in this schedule is taking a very large hammer to crack a very small nut. I will withdraw this amendment at the moment, but I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Cullen and the Government will look at the whole of this schedule before the next stage of this Bill, because it seems to me at the moment that, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is a bit over-zealous.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
11.29 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 51, leave out line 49.
The noble Earl said: I may say that in moving this amendment I have read and taken good note of the report of the Working Group on Introductions, which was published not long ago. I also note that under Article 11(2)(b) of the Berne Convention, which, after all, is the foundation document of a great deal of what we are doing here, the contracting parties are enjoined—I quote because the infinitive is split:
"to strictly control the introduction of non-native species",
and that is in essence what we are talking about. I am also introducing (and I couple them with No. 212) the following amendments: Nos. 214, 216, 217, 222 and 223, No. 222 being shared with the noble Duke who spoke just now.
I am also introducing these amendments to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that there are in this country quite a number of people who practise the hobby of keeping reptiles and amphibians, and to some extent this clause impinges severely on what has hitherto been a perfectly legal and, as I will assert in a minute or two, still is a perfectly harmless occupation. We must realise that there are people who will be affected by this Bill. All the animals mentioned in my amendments are frogs or reptiles; all of them are native to North-West Europe. Two of them are, arguably, already native to this country. One of these is the common wall lizard which occurs naturally in the Channel Islands, and the other is the so-called edible frog. which I think is a self-reproducing hybrid which derives from two species which, again, were arguably native in this country in the past.
As with the birds which have been mentioned by noble Lords who have just spoken, there is considerable experience of keeping these animals in the free-living state in this country. Several of them have become established as self-perpetuating populations. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have spread or are likely to spread, or that they impinge in any way on

1173
the ecology of our existing impoverished native amphibian and reptile fauna. I may say here parenthetically that it is clear that the channel barrier, which presumably came into operation as the ice receded, has prevented the spontaneous introduction into the British Isles of a number of species which exist in the adjoining parts of continental Europe.
These are not, like the budgerigar, animals which are strangers to our shores from very distant parts; they are not exotic; they are European species. They have not, as far as can be judged, caused any harm to our existing flora and fauna, related or unrelated. Only the marsh frog has had a reasonable degree of success. This has colonised the Romney and Winchelsea marshes and has spread elsewhere in Kent and Sussex in similar habitats. In these habitats, it is filling a niche which is not currently occupied by our indubitably native frog rana temporaria. I am not able to inform your Lordships accurately of the number of people who engage in this hobby of keeping these animals. These people do not keep their amphibians and reptiles in small cages as do the aviculturalists about whom I spoke earlier. They enjoy liberating these animals into their gardens. So far, those that have escaped to the wild have shown no deleterious effect whatsoever on our native fauna.
That is the substance of the amendments that I wish to move. If my noble friend who is to reply is able to give satisfactory answers to the questions that I will now pose, I feel that it is possibly not necessary to require the deletion of these species although I think that many people would regard it as advantageous. First of all, the people who are now keeping these animals in their gardens are concerned to know what is precisely meant by the words:
"to release or allow to escape into the wild ".
Is a man's private property the wild? Is a garden the wild? Where does the wild begin if a garden is not the wild? These are the sort of problems which are faced by the people who keep these animals in the wild.
Secondly, if it is decided that a garden is the wild, in that case I would seek assurances from the Government that if, in the light of their treaty obligations under the Berne convention, and in the light of the sound decision made by the committee on introductions, it is felt it must be necessary to include these inoffensive frogs and reptiles on this schedule, then I ask for assurances that the people (who may number 100 or possibly 1,000) will be given without difficulty and gratis the licences to continue to engage in the hobby which they have so far pursued legitimately. Just as the aviculturists engage in useful and productive biological research, so too have behavioural and other studies been carried out productively by people keeping these small reptiles and amphibians in the wild.
If I may join my amendment with a plea already uttered and which has already been answered favourably by the Front Bench, could these animals be listed by their Latin names first, so we know what we are talking about, and could they be listed in some sort of systematic order so that we do not get this extraordinary hotch-potch which has necessitated the odd linkage of amendments? I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I should like to take my
1174
noble friend Lord Cranbrook's amendments together, and also the amendments proposed by my noble friends the Duke of Atholl, Lady Elliot and Lord Massereene and Ferrard, because these amphibians have all been included in Schedule 8 for the same reason. These species are not known to be damaging to native flora and fauna in the circumstances in which they currently exist in Britain, but have been included as a precautionary measure. At this stage the possible consequences of large scale introductions are unknown and unpredictable, and the Government consider that further introductions should be monitored and permitted only under licence. However, we learn so much from hearing my noble friend on these subjects that I feel that Nye should look at all that he has said, which is always extremely educational, before resisting the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Some of these introductions were quite a long time ago. Do the Government set a time limit for an introduction before they can decide it is going to become a pest?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I think that the Government are advised by the NCC on these matters.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Do I take it that my noble friend was not going to resist the amendment or that, if he is not given time to consider it, he will resist it?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: What I meant to say was that I should like to look at it again.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I thank my noble friend for those remarks. I would remind him that there are a lot of people waiting for the answer, as well as myself. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 213 to 224 not moved.]
11.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Swinton: May I ask the Minister one question? I find myself totally and absolutely confused by the debate on this matter and perhaps the Minister will write to me about it. I refer to the answer that he gave when my noble friend asked about moving capercaillies. I receive demands from friends—some of whom are Members of this House—and their relations for some of my Canada geese to be put on their lakes. If this proposal goes through, will I be breaking the law if I meet these demands? It would not be any skin off my nose, since I do not charge, and it would save all the trouble of catching and driving them over in the back of my car. So I should personally be delighted if it were the case; it would be a very handy answer to give. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about it.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I shall write to the noble Earl.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Endangered species (import and export)]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Chelwood: When we were debating the 1976 Act it was suggested on both sides of the House, very strongly, that unless there were some restriction on the ports of entry through which rare species of animals or plants could come into this country, or for that matter go out (be exported), the problem facing the Customs official would he an impossible one, and that as a result rare animals and rare plants that are not supposed to be imported, or parts of them, after they are dead, would find their way into this country. That indeed is what is happening. There was very strong pressure on the Government at the time, but it was resisted and the Bill was not suitably amended.
I know that this is a bit of a fast one for my noble friend, and all I am asking is that he should take this point on board and be good enough to let me know the Government's thinking about it. It is a fact that unless there is some restriction on ports of entry—I am talking about ports around our coast, and the airports—great problems arise and to some extent the law is an ass. At the time that we debated this question it was only at Heathrow that there were proper facilities for looking after live animals, including birds, coming into this country.
We have all read harrowing stories about the number of birds that arrive dead, or die after arrival before they can be disposed of. Obviously it would be much easier for all concerned, because of the lack of expertise nation-wide, if a small number of experts could be concentrated at a small number of ports of entry, be they airfields or sea ports. That would not be a very difficult thing to do. It would be an enormous step forward and it would mean that the law would be much more efficiently enforced and much cruelty would be avoided. I would ask my noble friend to be good enough to look at this question and be kind enough to write to me.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I have had some advice on this particular point. Although it seems on the face of it that the best thing is to say that only certain ports and certain airports can be used, the difficulty is that there is a danger of people clandestinely bringing species in in other ways. It may be better when a licence is granted to a person to make it a condition that he uses a particular port or airport, and to specify that otherwise he will be going against the conditions of the licence. I understand that in America, where the ports and airports are definitely agreed, there has been considerable trouble. However I am sure that there is more to it than that, and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I hope that the noble Lord will not need to write to his noble friend, because, as I understand it, Amendment No. 242, in the names of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, actually deals with this point. I am sure that those noble Lords have listened very carefully to what the Minister had t o say, and they will have their arguments prepared
1176
when we come to that amendment.
Clause 14 agreed to.
11.44 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton moved Amendment No. 225:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Marine Reserves
.—(1) Where, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, a relevant Countryside Commission, and any other body seeming to him to be appropriate, it appears to the Secretary of State desirable in the interests of conservation of the marine environment and its resources (including research), or for education, recreational or aesthetic purposes connected with the marine environment, may make, for any specified area, an order under this Part including all or any part of the following provisions:—

(a) Restrictions under section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as if sections 5, 15 and 20 of that Act were incorporated into this Part, with the substitution for references to the Ministers or any of them of references to the Secretary of State, and for sea fish of references to any organisms which normally inhabit the sea.

(b) Restrict any person entirely, or on conditions, from

(i) entering that area or any part of it at all or any times;

(ii) intentionally killing, injuring, disturbing or taking any wild animal, or intentionally picking, uprooting or destroying any wild plant;

(iii) damaging or destroying any structure or place which any wild animal uses for shelter or protection;

(iv) digging, drilling or dredging, or otherwise disturbing the sea bed;

(v) removing any natural object or matter from the sea bed.

(2) An order under subsection (1) shall specify an area within the seaward limits of United Kingdom territorial waters, or such larger area as may be desirable in order to fulfil any Convention.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the powers under section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 may be exercised in the interest of nature conservation in general, including the prevention of disturbance of other than sea fish by sea fishing operations.
(4) The areas listed in Schedule 9A shall be deemed to be the subject of an order covering all species for which there is power to make an order and made by the Secretary of State under this section and subject to the restrictions in the provisions mentioned in column 2 of that Schedule.
(5) Where an order is made under this section, or section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967,

(a) the authority making the order shall notify any authority which can permit discharges (either specifically or generally) under the Rivers Prevention of Pollution Acts 1951 and 1961, the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, which may affect the area specified in the order or any part of it, and that authority shall thereupon treat the need for conservation of the organisms set out in the order and the achievement of the restrictions set out in the order as the first and paramount consideration in dealing with matters which may or do affect that area; and

(b) in the case of a water authority, all applications for consent under section 34 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be deemed to be subject to a direction under section 35 of that Act.

(6) At the end of section 56 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be added a new subsection:—
"(7) For the purpose of enabling effect to be given to any Convention for the protection of wildlife or the marine environment, the Secretary of State may by order extend the definition in subsection (1) of "controlled waters" to include such area as the Convention may permit or require"; and in section 104(1) and (2) after "53" shall be inserted "56(7)"."
(7) In section 12(1) of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 at the end of the definition of "United Kingdom Waters" shall be added the words "or controlled waters within the meaning of section 56(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974".").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 292,560, and 271A. Before I start explaining the amendment, I must make an apology; there are three little mistakes in this new clause. In line 6 of the first subsection, the word "education" should read "educational". In the fourth line of subsection (1)(a) the word "for" before the word "references" should read "of". The first word in subsection (1)(b) should read "restricted", not "restrict". I apologise for the mistakes when putting it down.
This is an important amendment. This Bill deals with the habitat of our country. We are an island and round it are coastal waters which are an essential part of our habitat. We have signed conventions which up to this moment we have not taken any legal steps to implement. This Bill seems to offer a natural vehicle for doing this. The alternative would be for the Government to introduce some form of order, later on perhaps, or a Bill of their own later this year. But at this time they seem to have done nothing except to issue a small consultative document which was published yesterday. Therefore, in spite of the injunction of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I should like very briefly to give the background to this amendment.
The variety and increase in mankind's activities and impact on our coastal seas are the cause of very great concern. While we know that the sea is large and some impacts are localised, sites of particular value cannot at present he afforded any protection. A particular problem of marine conservation is that knowledge of the abundance of a species or of how the environment functions is very much less precise and less easy to translate into figures than it is on land. Conclusive scientific data can only be assembled well after the time when protective action should have been taken. Thus the power to take such action should not, I submit, depend on proof that the species or habitat is endangered. We need to manage our marine environment as a productive whole, which means maintaining its component parts well above danger level.
At the same time, single impacts can have a devastating and often irreversible effect on habitats and communities of long standing. A site may be of value because a rare or fragile animal or plant lives there, or perhaps it is the best example of a type of habitat or biological community, or because it is an important site for education or research studies which are of a long-term nature and require proper management. It may simply be of local importance because it is relatively undamaged and provides a nearby site for local studies or enjoyment or conservation of species locally.
The Nature Conservancy Council, in conjunction with the National Environment Research Council, have recently prepared a document entitled Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment—a very useful document which I recommend to all your Lordships, if you have not seen it—in which they set out much of the background to the marine reserve issue. In the last chapter they make several recommendations, some of which are
1178
directly related to this issue. Recommendation No. 4 is that:
"In order to establish conservation areas representative of particular habitats, relatively large areas should be designated in most cases".
Their fifth recommendation was that in the case of specialised habitats of restricted areas, consideration should be given to designation of a series of small sites in addition to the large conservation areas. Recommendation No. 8 recommended that the NCC should seek consultation with the appropriate authorities to look into the possibility of obtaining legislative measures to maintain threatened marine species.
In addition, it is important that we act to conserve the critical feeding and breeding habitats of vulnerable species such as whales, seabirds and large fish. While some or all of these groups are protected from direct danger, it will not save them from starvation or pollution of food supply. There are required therefore two different types of action which perhaps will sometimes overlap. One is the conserving of areas of seabed and overlying waters to conserve the populations of our British marine species, and specific sites and habitats for conservation, research, recreation, aesthetic and local interest purposes. The other one is the conservation of critical habitats—food or breeding areas of endangered or otherwise threatened species.
Here in the United Kingdom we have no powers, of which I am aware, to conserve our valuable coastal waters, apart from regulations that may be imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland on numbers and size of fish caught and the gear which may he used so to do. Thus, we cannot conserve the seabed and overlying waters in sites of local, scientific, conservation, recreation or aesthetic interest; conserve the food of threatened species or protected species, such as seabirds or whales; prevent pollution from destroying a unique site or a seabird population whose nesting grounds may already be protected.
In Britain, several marine nature reserves have been set up by the voluntary compliance of users with a management plan—two examples are the marine reserves of Bardsey and Lundy—which attempt to protect an area of sea and seabed and the wildlife living there from specified disturbances. Local conservationists, divers, anglers, bird watchers and commercial fishermen have joined forces to try to safeguard these particularly rich sites. But they remain unsupported by law and vulnerable to an unscrupulous operator.
Such sites need to be conserved by law as vital parts of our natural heritage. There should be provision in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, by which a site may be designated a marine reserve. The examples of which activities might need to be controlled by by-laws in such a marine nature reserve are access, whether on the surface, under water or by hovercraft; activities which would damage the seabed and its associated flora and fauna; certain fishing practices, whether for sport or commercial purposes; sport and recreation; building operations, and, of course, the removal or depositing of objects and materials.
Already in some 60 countries statutory provision has been made for marine conservation areas designated

1179
marine or underwater reserves, sanctuaries or parks. Many of these are in temperate seas and protect habitats similar to those which are around our shores. Examples are to be found in France, Spain, South Africa, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, Japan and the United States.
Having made that brief introduction—which was probably too long for this time of night—I should like to explain what this amendment would do. We have put it in Part I, because it was thought desirable to include all provisions, such as Clause 24(3), which require notices to be published. It might otherwise have been thought by your Lordships more appropriate to put it in Part II for nature conservation, although this would have required more cumbersome drafting.
Subsection (1)(a), while providing the Secretary of State with powers that extend to our fisheries limits, via the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, is limited by subsection (2) to territorial waters unless an international convention allows actions to be taken further out. That is the spirit behind the entire amendment.
The powers given to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland or Northern Ireland via the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 allow restrictions on the taking of living, or once living, things by any kind of vessel for the purposes of conserving the marine environment and its resources. The objective here is to enable fishing operations to be restricted in marine reserve areas, where they may be detrimental to the species living, feeding or breeding in those areas, whether on the seabed or in the water.
It overlaps with the Ministry of Agriculture's powers to declare purely fisheries restrictions, so as to allow the Secretaries of State for the Environment, and for Scotland and Northern Ireland to have full powers in the relevant areas. Orders by the Secretaries of State would be made under this Bill, but fishery officers are given powers of enforcement, because it would be illogical for those officers to be inspecting boats for one type of fishing and ignoring other activities which were also illegal.
The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 at present allows orders for the protection of areas from sea fishing to be made beyond territorial waters only where these implement international conventions. However, this situation is likely to change if the Fisheries Bill in its present form is accepted by Parliament. So subsection (1)(b) allows the Secretary of State to restrict such activities as are deemed necessary for the protection of any specific area, and the activities are listed.
Not all activities would need to be restricted at any particular place or time. Licences would be required to carry out a restricted activity. Subsection (1)(b)(i) could be used, among other things, to prevent the through passage of shipping. It is anticipated that this would only be exercised to restrict rights of innocent passage where international conventions permitted this. Generally speaking, ships have such a right, even in foreign territorial waters.
Subsection (2) limits the effects of subsection (1) to territorial waters unless an international convention allows them to be extended further. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the Ministry of Agriculture can use existing fishery restriction powers to stop sea fishing in the interests of other marine life. Section 10 of the
1180
Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 already says that Ministers may take or concur or assist in the taking of such measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources as may be required for giving effect to any convention or agreement for the time being in force between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of any other country. This subsection is probably therefore at least partially unnecessary, but we should like the matter to be 100 per cent. clear.
Subsection (4) and the new schedule in our Amendment No. 271A provide a listing in the Bill itself, as if listed by the Department of the Environment for the purposes specified in the second column, of two existing voluntary reserves around our island. It should be noted that the areas concerned cover the beach as well as territorial waters. This is deliberate, in that the beach is obviously an extension of the sea, and we wish to set a precedent for any future reserves to cover the beach as well as the sea. It is possible that the inclusion of specific areas might lead to this being regarded as hybrid. if so, this provision would have to be withdrawn.
Subsection (5)(a) makes water authorities and other such bodies take the need for the conservation of wildlife in the listed areas to be of first and paramount importance. This is a well-known phrase in relation to the treatment of children before courts dealing with their custody or welfare. It means that it is always at the forefront of consideration and has the greatest weight placed upon it, but it is not exclusive. It is not therefore likely to lead to the revocation of licences to discharge, even where this is feasible, and might not lead to non-renewal but should certainly prevent most new grants of licences. It would be possible to have notification procedures when areas were under consideration so that licences were not granted between consideration and the making of the order, or to have a temporary order on the lines of emergency tree preservation orders. This seems to be getting rather complicated and has not been attempted.
Subsection (5)(b) requires new consent applications to water authorities for the right to discharge pollution to a marine reserve area to go to the Secretaries of State for the Environment or Scotland or Northern Ireland instead of having to be decided by the water authority.
Subsection (6) allows the Control of Pollution Act controls on shore-based pollution to extend beyond territorial waters if an international convention permits this. This is not likely to be very important in practice, but it seems reasonable to have the powers. Similarly, subsection (7) extends the control on foreign ships dumping in such areas outside territorial waters if an international convention allows it.
I make no apology for having spelled these details out at length. It is a most important matter. I have seen articles in some of the major papers of our country which deal with the problem. I think the Government have a duty not only to the country but to the two conventions which they have signed to say what they are going to do about these matters. Here we have a highly suitable vehicle. It is an all-party supported measure and I recommend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said, this is an amendment which is supported on all sides of the Committee, and indeed at Second Reading of this Bill I think it is fair to say that this was the one omission from the Bill above all others which received condemnation from all sides of the House. I noticed one or two noble Lords with their eyes on the clock when the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was introducing this amendment. I would simply say to them that had the Government taken note of what was said to them at Second Reading the Government would have been moving this amendment and not us, and it would have been done a great deal more quickly.
I do not want to repeat anything that the noble Lord said in introducing this important amendment but I should like to try to demolish what I suspect might be at least part of the Government's response, and I hope that will at least save a little time. This matter has been looked at over a long period of time. I understand that an inter-departmental working party was set up by the Department of the Environment and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can confirm this when he comes to reply. I understand that the working party has been examining the legislative and administrative aspects of marine nature reserves since March 1978. Agreement in principle to the setting up of marine nature reserves was reached by the working party, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm those points which have been passed on to a number of noble Lords by the Nature Conservancy Council, which of course fully supports this amendment.
I stress the fact that this has been looked at since March 1978 because of what is to come. But before we get to that, last October I asked the Government in a Question for Written Answer whether they would confirm that they still intended to include provisions in this Bill to enable the NCC to set up marine nature reserves. On the 29th October the noble Earl, Lord Avon, confirmed to me that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was still considering the provision in the forthcoming Wildlife and Countryside Bill of powers for the Nature Conservancy Council to propose the designation of such reserves. In other words, last October, after a working party had been looking at this for about two years, the Government were considering what provisions to put in the Bill, and that seemed to be a very reasonable state of affairs.
We then come to what seems to me to be a quite extraordinary abuse of the procedures for consultation. I say that because I do not think it would be right to expect noble Lords opposite to say this of the Government's behaviour. There was very good consultation on this Bill. Consultation papers were issued on a range of subjects; on the whole, people were asked to respond within about six to eight weeks. Some of them were issued in the middle of the summer, in August, but nobody made too much of a complaint about that because the Government had behaved admirably in consulting all interests before the Bill was presented to Parliament.
We now have a consultation paper on marine nature reserves, issued yesterday, by a coincidence the day before your Lordships happen to be considering this
1182
amendment. Far from asking for responses by today, when the Committee were going to be considering it, or even within four or six weeks, the consultation paper actually asked people to respond three days after the end of the Session of Parliament, on the 2nd or 3rd August. That seems to me to be a blatant "try on" by the Government which really is not on, and in the face of all party support for this amendment I hope that this is the last we shall hear of that particular consultation paper. It is a nonsense.
This matter has been looked at since March 1978, an inter-departmental working party has agreed in principle that this is right, and it simply is not on that at this stage of the Bill the Government should start issuing consultation papers and then coming to your Lordships' House and saying: "We cannot do anything until the 3rd August, when we get all the replies in". That will not wash.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made a most convincing case for this amendment, which has our full support and the full support of almost everyone who spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Chelwood: I hope I may detain your Lordships for a few minutes on this very important amendment, perhaps one of the two or three most important amendments in the whole of this Bill. I find it extremely disappointing and also surprising that there is no provision in the Bill for the setting up of marine nature reserves. The Government have had a great deal of time to consider this. We are talking about a subject which has been of great concern to conservationists, to my knowledge, for at least 20 years, which covers seven or eight Governments. The then Nature Conservancy, as it was called, first raised the question of setting up marine nature reserves in March 1968, long before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned, in a paper called Conservation Policy in the Shallow Seas. There was increasing Government interest in this subject after that and the Natural Environment Research Council set up a working party on marine wildlife conservation under Professor R. B. Clark, a great expert, in 1971.
I understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, and I think my noble friend did, that there has been an inter-departmental working party looking into this question. It was set up nearly three years ago. I am told—and I think this is right; perhaps my noble friend can confirm it—that it reached agreement in principle last summer, but that its deliberations were pigeon-holed for some reason that I do not understand.
Now what do we have? We have consultation, and only today the consultation paper was issued and a copy of it is in the Library. I would like to read two or three sentences from it because they are extremely relevant to this discussion:
"It is illogical that conservation policy should end at the low-water mark, especially in view of the interdependence of marine and land-based ecosystems. Public interest in marine conservation is growing and there is concern that not enough is being done to protect marine wildlife resource in both the national and the international community. The United Kingdom appears to be in danger of lagging behind many other nations".
My noble friend Lord Mowbray said including some within the European Community who have already

1183
established statutorily protected marine reserves. Then,
"It could prove dangerous to wait until the damage is done before seeking the power to declare statutorily protected marine nature reserves".
There is a lot of sense in that. The replies to the consultation paper have to be in by 3rd August, and that of course puts it out of court so far as this legislation is concerned; that is very regrettable.
So what do we do about it? The amendment by the three noble Lords, one from each of the major parties, is an enterprising and ambitious attempt to relate to this Bill the needs of marine nature conservation. I welcome it and I am very glad we are having this debate on this subject at this moment. But I would understand if the Government felt that this amendment was too ambitious and too all-embracing, and perhaps even encompassing some areas which have not yet been fully considered by the inter-departmental working party or even included in the consultation paper.
So let us address ourselves to the undoubted need reflected in the Nature Conservancy Council pamphlet to which attention has been drawn called Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment. It was published as long ago as October 1979, so it has been very widely read and was certainly very widely welcomed. We need to conserve representative as well as unusual and unique communities of marine plants and animals and their habitats. Let us confine ourselves now at this moment to that need and how it can be met in this Bill, without denying the Government the need for further and full consultation, which I am entirely in favour of.
I suggest, therefore, it would be both proper and possible for the Secretary of State for the Environment, through my noble friend, to propose to the House by way of a suitable new clause at Report stage that he should have a power to declare by order, after consulting the Nature Conservancy Council, areas of sea outwards from the low-water mark to be marine nature reserves. The order would specify activities to be banned from these areas and the penalties for transgression. There would be publication in draft, consideration of objections in the usual way, so that all interests affected could make their views known. A simple enabling power of this sort could be included in the Bill without any difficulty at all, with the proviso that it did not become operative until the consultation procedure has been satisfactorily concluded.
I earnestly request the Government to accept this suggestion of an enabling clause and to put it down at Report stage. I feel that it would go a long way—in fact, as far as it is possible to go at this moment—to meet the very strongly expressed wishes of the Committee. Six noble Lords spoke up in favour of marine nature reserves on Second Reading. I think that there is no doubt at all that your Lordships' wish is that an enabling clause should be included. I think that to fail to do this would be "illogical", to use the word that I quoted from the consultation paper, and shortsighted. We should continue to be out of step with many other countries and, incidentally, defaulting on our international obligations.
If the Government do not put down an enabling clause on Report, other noble Lords will certainly do so, and I would expect such a clause to be carried against
1184
the wishes of the Government. However, there is no need whatever for that situation to arise. I believe that there is a very strong case for an enabling clause so that the Government can create marine nature reserves—even an unanswerable case.
Lord Craigton: Before the Minister replies, may I point out that I have at a later stage in the Bill, tabled a series of amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 378, to create marine reserves in a much simpler way? I simply suggest extending the land of Britain for SSI purposes by three miles out to sea, and letting the NCC get on with it. I know that that is delightfully simple. I really cannot see what is wrong with it. I shall not attempt to move that amendment now, but the noble Lord could take into consideration when he makes a decision on this amendment, which I support entirely—and I would be glad to withdraw my own amendment—that there is a sort of long-stop which might get him out of some difficulty.
Earl Peel: There must be very few subjects on which I can claim superior qualifications to your Lordships, but I am a qualified deep-sea diver, Sub-aqua Club Class 3—if that means anything to your Lordships—and I have dived considerably around the world. I should like very much to endorse this amendment and also to take the matter a stage further and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, particularly on the subject of marine nature reserves. I have dived extensively off the African coast and it is extraordinary that where what are called marine "national parks" exist the difference between those national parks and the non-park areas is most impressive indeed. I would certainly endorse everything that has been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, when he mentioned the European countries that were adhering to the EEC directives on this, failed to mention Italy. I raise this particularly because I have also dived off the Italian coast and in the Mediterranean and there, of course, the damage that has been done is absolutely criminal. I, therefore, urge your Lordships and the Government to look very closely at this and perhaps to take it a stage further and consider marine national reserves.
The Earl of Avon: First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton for bringing up this subject which is so important. To put the record straight, I should like to remind both him and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that, when we spoke on this during the Second Reading debate, I did say that there was a consultation paper coming and I asked people to be patient until it arrived. In fact both my noble friends quoted quite a lot from the consultation paper, proving that it has been read and that it is of interest. I think I can say that we have done what we said that we would do on Second Reading.
I should also like to say that it is very easy to move dates just that little bit around to make it seem as though everything took a lot longer than it did, and I think that that has been done a little as regards this matter. There was an inter-departmental working party which started in 1979 and ended, I am informed, towards the end of 1980. They had the greatest difficulty in even arriving at an agreed consultation paper, so I do not think that we have been all that slow.

1185
When I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a Written Answer in October, by that stage it was, of course, getting a little late to get a provision into the Bill.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that the noble Earl ought simply to brush this question away quite as easily as that. It is not a substantive point and I do not want to press him. But here we have a paper of only two and a half sides—13 paragraphs. I do not know how fast the noble Earl types, but even I could have managed to type this in an hour and a half. Why did it take from October to 2nd February to get it typed?
The Earl of Avon: I think that the noble Lord is showing naïvety about the complication of this issue. I do not think that he is beginning to realise the complexities which are involved here. Perhaps I may give an indication. For instance, it involves the MAFF, the Scottish Department, the Department of Trade, the Department of Energy and the Department of Industry. This cannot be done overnight. I think it would have been wrong to have asked us to proceed much faster. Anyway, as noble Lords now know, the Government are currently in the process of consulting the interested organisations about legislation to provide for the statutorily protected marine reserves. We shall, of course, study the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton and also by my noble friend Lord Craigton.
The whole subject is extremely complex, as I said on Second Reading. There are a great number of legitimate interests which are involved. Here I would turn to my noble friend Lord Peel and say that I was about to say: "Even sub-aqua", thinking that nobody in this Committee would actually come up with that, but he even out-manoeuvred me there. I know that noble Lords will have looked at the consultation document. No fewer than 100 people are being sent this letter in order to ask for their reactions. It would be impracticable to ask the Government to act in advance of the completion of our present consultations. The Government do not want to prejudge the outcome of what we consider to be a very important and complex matter.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood mentioned an enabling power. I undertake to go to the Secretary of State to see whether it is possible for us to include an enabling power in this Bill. I shall keep my noble friend Lord Mowbray informed.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I thank my noble friend Lord Avon for what he has told us, especially for the assurance that he has given about coming back to us about the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Chelwood of an enabling power for an order. As my noble friend Lord Craigton has already informed us, we shall have second and third bites at this particular cherry on Committee on the fourth or fifth days, or both. Bearing that in mind, I shall in one moment withdraw the amendment for the time being.
I should like to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. I think that for the gestation time that this consultative document has been in the womb it is a remarkably small, insignificant baby. When I first saw it, I thought that it was a DoE PR blurb
1186
about the consultative document, and I had to be convinced later that it was the actual document. To be quite honest, that is how surprised I was. Having said that, I do not want to appear ungracious. I am grateful that my noble friend has said that the Government will look at this again and, looking at the clock, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 [Amendments of the 1976 Act]:
12.18 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 52, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—
("1.—(1) After subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1976 Act (restriction on importation and exportation of certain animals and plants) there shall be inserted the following subsection—").
The noble Earl said: The schedule with which we are now concerned is involved with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. This enacted into our United Kingdom legislation the so-called Washington Convention. In the Bill as it stands, the Government are seeking to delete from the 1976 Act a valuable measure in Section 1(3), which lays a duty upon the Secretary of State to consult his scientific advisers before issuing a licence to import.
The Washington Convention requires that international trade in species listed in Appendices 1 and 2 should be permitted only on the advice of a national scientific authority, which in this country is the Scientific Authority for Animals. This restriction is highly desirable. It is unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State or, in practice, the officials of the Department of the Environment to be competent to make the scientific judgments that are necessary before a licence can be issued. In this particular part of the Bill the Government appear to be seeking to relieve the Secretary of State of his obligation to consult the scientific authority.
In moving the amendment I am aware that there are practical difficulties in operating the 1976 Act as it stands at present. These arise, I understand, to a great extent because in our 1976 Act this country aims to protect a much wider list of species than those that are strictly required by the two appendices to the Washington Convention that I mentioned. In fact, the technique to which I have referred as being British in origins, the technique of reverse listing, has been applied. As a consequence there is undoubtedly the possibility, if not the inevitability, that the workload on members of the Scientific Authority for Animals can become highly excessive.
Given the large number of applications and the nature of those applications, some of which are entered, as it were, in a precautionary manner in order to obtain general permissions rather than specific permissions, some degree of planned delegation is almost certainly necessary. But speaking from the point of view of science and of scientifically based conservation, the decision to delegate must rest with the scientific authority, which must be free itself to decide which applications it wishes to review. Some modifications of the 1976 Act may be required, but I do not think that the change which is proposed in this Bill is the right change. Conservationists fear that to remove the primary responsibility from the scientific authority

1187
would be detrimental to endangered or vulnerable species that are concerned in international trade. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: This is an important amendment and I should like strongly to support everything that the noble Earl has said. The 1976 Act had this measure which proved extremely valuable, and we have heard a lot during the course of the Committee stage about the emphasis which the Government place on the advice they receive from their scientific advisers. It seems to me to be extremely detrimental, to put it mildly, that in this particular part of Schedule 9 they should be seeking to avoid going to their scientific advisers for advice, and I hope that the Government will accept the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Owing to the time I should like to cut down what I was going to say, and ask the noble Earl whether he would withdraw his amendment on an undertaking that we will put down a Government amendment on Report which would reinstate Section 1(3) of the 1976 Act, subject only to a proviso that where a scientific authority have given general advice to the Secretary of State with regard to a defined category of applications, and have informed the Secretary of State that they do not wish to be consulted on individual applications falling within that category, the Secretary of State shall not be required so to consult them. I hope that on that understanding the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The form of words that has been suggested seems to me to leave the decision with the scientific authority, which is precisely the request I make. Therefore, in these terms I am glad to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
12,25 a.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 53, line 3, at beginning insert ("is part of or").
The noble Lord said: I suggest it would be convenient for the Committee to consider at the same time the following amendments: Nos. 236, 237 and 238. As drafted, the prohibition in respect of the sale of animals or plants contained in the new Schedules 4 and 5 to the 1976 Act (species considered as endangered) includes whole, live or dead specimens and items derived or manufactured from them. It does not, however, cover parts of the animals or plants listed, or eggs or other immature forms of animals. These amendments are designed to rectify those omissions and would bring the new provision into line with the import and export licensing under the Act which also covers the parts, eggs and so on specified in Schedule 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 53, line 12, after ("words") insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: At this stage we are concerned with that part of the 1976 Act which relates to measures concerning the commercialisation of endangered species. The amendment would insert a provision to prohibit the exhibition or display of species, an activity which clearly could be for commercial gain if involved only with competitive types of display with which prizes may be concerned. This small amendment tidies up the situation and brings it in line with the basic intentions of the subsection.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I must oppose this amendment not only because of the severe limitation imposed by the reference to subsection (8) but because it is unnecessary, as Section 139 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 already provides the commissioners with power to dispose of goods which have been condemned by the court, or deemed to have been condemned in the absence of a claim against forfeiture within a month, in such manner as the commissioners may direct. For the most part, therefore, the commissioners already have the powers which the amendment seeks to give them, and as regards endangered species, it is their practice to consult with the Department of the Environment before exercising their power. Although the commissioners have power to return, for instance, an animal to its country of origin, they do not have power to recover the expenses. With a living animal the proposal could be attractive and the Government intend to consider it with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment on Report. In view of that intention, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I think the lateness of the hour led us into the delusion that we were addressing each other. In fact, I spoke inadvertently to Amendment No. 235 and my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 229; I was sharp enough to notice that we were not talking about the same thing. But under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw No. 229, the amendment to which I should have been speaking.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 53, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
("Powers to order return to country of origin or disposal of animals, plants or items, and powers of entry
2. At the end of section 1 of the 1976 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(8A)(a) Where as provided by subsection (8) above any animal, plant or item is condemned as forfeit or is deemed to have been duly condemned as forfeited under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Court or the Commissioners (as the case may be) may, where in the opinion of the Commissioners it is practicable to do so, order the same to be returned to the country from which it appears to have originated, or to be otherwise disposed of in accordance with the advice of any of the approved scientific authorities as defined in section 2 below.
(b) Where any animal, plant or item is dealt with under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the Commissioners may themselves arrange for the same to be returned to the country from which it appears to have originated, or to be otherwise disposed of as mentioned in that paragraph, and may recover any expenses thereby incurred from any person responsible for its import or any person who possessed or had control of the animal, plant or item at or within one year before the time of its seizure.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 230 and, at the same time, with permission, to speak to Amendment No. 232 as well. I will be very brief. This new subsection of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 would give Customs and Excise powers either to return the forfeited specimens to the country of origin or otherwise to dispose of them as advised by the appropriate scientific authority. In addition, Customs and Excise would be able to recover any costs that they might incur on behalf of the importer.
The prime objective of disposal in such circumstances, of course, would be to ensure by whatever means possible the best chance of conservation of the species. Destruction, the normal alternative, would usually be out of the question. There would be two alternatives, really, I suppose: first of all, to send the specimen back to the country of origin, which is envisaged in Article 8 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—that seems to me to be highly improbable and usually inadvisable—or, secondly, perhaps, to place the specimen in a zoo or other centre specialising in the breeding and preservation of the species concerned.
Since it is the importer who causes this problem, it seems right to me, and I think it will to other noble Lords as well, that it should be he, the importer, and not public funds, who should bear the costs incurred by the disposal of the specimen in the best possible way. Currently, Customs and Excise, as I have said, lack the power to recover these costs. This amendment would give them this power, thereby ensuring that no costs fall on the public purse, while ensuring the best possible way to safeguard the illegally imported species concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I should simply like to support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am afraid that, quite unintentionally, I have already answered my noble friend on this point, as he will have heard. I doubt whether the Committee will want me to say again what I said just now by mistake.
Lord Chelwood: I was not listening as well as I should have been.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord will be glad to hear that we propose to put forward an amendment on this point. We intend to consider this proposal with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment at Report stage. I therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: The only problem with that is that I am now not at all clear what the noble Lord would have said about Amendment No. 229, to which I do not think he has yet responded. I wonder whether there is just a word or two that he could say—"Yes" or "No" or "Maybe"—which would let us know what was the Government's attitude to the amendment which the noble Earl so ably did not move.
The Earl of Avon: I think it was spoken to with Amendments Nos. 226 and 227, when Lord Cranbrook moved his earlier amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It was simply consequential, in fact, on the amendments I withdrew.
Lord Chelwood: So far as these two amendments are concerned, I greatly appreciate what my noble friend has said, and I naturally withdraw the amendment that I have moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 231.
Page 53, line 34, at end insert—
("(11) The Secretary of State shall not issue a licence under this section authorising for the purpose of trade the importation or exportation of anything of a kind to which Schedule 6 for the time being applies.").
The noble Lord said: This is to strengthen the species in Schedule 6. It would forbid trade both ways, out and in, in the species in Schedule 6. This would take some of the commercial temptations out of killing them. Schedule 6 comprises species which may not be killed in certain specified ways. Those ways are outlawed, and to kill them in those ways may be an offence. If we stop traffic in the animals in Schedule 6 between this country and any other country, and between any other country and this country, the chances of the animals in Schedule 6 being left alone are a little stronger. That is what this amendment is all about. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am obliged to oppose this amendment, the effect of which would be to oblige the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a licence for the importation or exportation of a specimen of a species listed in Schedule 6 for the purposes of trade.
Of the species listed in Schedule 6, the otter, for example, is already listed in Appendix 1 of the Washington Convention, and international trade for commercial purposes is therefore already prohibited. Most of the others, however, are not even regarded as vulnerable and it would not therefore be proper or justified for the Secretary of State to ban their import or export. I have, on the other hand, noticed that there is one that is not the subject of licensing under the 1976 Act and so I undertake to ensure that it will become controlled when the Bill is enacted. I refer to the red squirrel. In this way, it will be possible to detect if species come into trade, and appropriate measures can be taken. Although the substance of the amendment would cause it to be resisted in any event, the manner in which it is put down is believed to be defective to achieve its purpose. In the light of the undertaking I have just given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Certainly. I am glad to add to the heavy burden already assumed by the Front Bench of matters to be further considered. I guess that the Report stage will be a very interesting time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 not moved.]
12.36 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert (", or displays to the public").
The noble Earl said: I have already inadvertently spoken to Amendment No. 235, the effect of which is to include Schedule 4 to the 1976 Act provisions to prohibit display. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Again, I am afraid that I must oppose the amendment, which would have the effect, as the noble Earl has said, of prohibiting exhibition to the public of a species listed on the new Schedules 4 and 5 proposed for the 1976 Act, or of a part or derivative of such a species, unless a specified licence had been issued. At one time, we seriously considered including such a provision in the Bill, but we concluded that it would not be justified. The major effect of the provision would be upon zoos and museums. The licensing of captive bred specimens, which it would make necessary, would be particularly onerous on the former. This would have little benefit and could even have the result of hindering some of the important captive breeding projects being conducted by zoos.
There would still be sufficient safeguards on the importation of specimens for display to the public. All the specimens on the new Schedules are regarded for licensing purposes as endangered. Consequently, the utmost care is taken in the consideration of licences to import them and the scientific authority will continue to be consulted on individual applications. A licence to import both live and dead specimens will therefore have been thoroughly vetted and its issue will have been critically judged in terms of conservation. There will still be the further safeguard for live specimens, for which the Secretary of State will continue to give directions under Section 6, on their movement after importation. Thus we shall be able to keep track of their whereabouts and detect any infringement of the conditions. I accordingly invite my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I should have thought that the legitimate activities of zoos and museums would have been covered by licensing, possibly by general licensing, and would not have created the problems that he has suggested they would. I note with interest the fact that he has informed the House that the movements of live specimens that are imported will be carefully monitored after their importation, which is an interesting and valuable point to have had made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 236, 237 and 238 en bloc:
Page 54, line 10, after ("animal") insert ("or an egg or other immature stage of an animal").
Page 54, line 15, leave out ("anything which") and insert ("any part of or anything which derives from or").
Page 54, line 19, after ("is") insert ("a part of or derives from or is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 54, line 20, after ("before") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which repairs the omission of the word "the". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think it would be with the general agreement of the Committee that we should break at this point. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  EEC STUDENTS: UK CHARGES
  EEC STUDENTS: UK CHARGES
  NORTHERN IRELAND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  THE SHORT TIME WORKING COMPENSATION SCHEME IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  THE SHORT TIME WORKING COMPENSATION SCHEME IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  SHORT-TIME WORKING IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  SHORT-TIME WORKING IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  THE SHORT-TIME WORKING COMPENSATION SCHEME
  THE SHORT-TIME WORKING COMPENSATION SCHEME
  SHIPBUILDING COMPANIES: COMPENSATION
  SHIPBUILDING COMPANIES: COMPENSATION
  MARINE NATURE RESERVES: CONSULTATION PAPER
  MARINE NATURE RESERVES: CONSULTATION PAPER
  DIEGO GARCIA: CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
  DIEGO GARCIA: CIVIL ADMINISTRATION