Sitting of 9 February 1981

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

    Index of Industrial Production
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the index of industrial production at present; and how this compares with the comparable figure for the same months in 1974.
    The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): In the three months to November 1980 the index of industrial production was 100·6, some 3½ per cent, lower than in the same period in 1974.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures tell the story of six wasted years? What steps do the Government intend to take to increase demand for industry's products so that we can once again achieve the increased industrial production that we had in the 30 years after the war?
    Mr. Baker: I share my hon. Friend's concern. As the House knows, the major reason for the drop in manufacturing and industrial production last year was the reduction of stocks, which was on a scale unprecedented in our recent economic history. There is an indication that that trend is coming to an end.
    Mr. Anderson: Do these appalling figures suggest to the Minister that the Government are on target? If so, which target are they aiming at?
    Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman is calling for some change of direction or variation in target, I should remind him that the Government's overriding target is to contain the rate of inflation. If we are deflected from that target we shall never get out of the cycle of inflation and unemployment.

    Motoring Manufacturing
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the motor manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The future of the motor manufacturing industry depends upon its ability to offer competitive products to the satisfaction of the consumer. There are encouraging signs that progress is being made in this respect.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that my constituents in the West Midlands, particularly those who work at Longbridge, are most satisfied with the Government's past and recently announced policy, which has allowed the development of the Metro car? Hon. Members on both sides of the House can hardly avoid recognising that it is a stunning success. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is the way that British-built cars with British-built components can eat into the market share of imported foreign-built cars?
    Mr. Tebbit: I agree that the success of the Metro—both in terms of market penetration and of the productivity of those employed at the plant—is most encouraging. I wish the company well. I hope that its next models will be as successful.
    Mr. Park: Are the Government prepared to support the approaches that have been made by the car constructors' association in Europe to do something on an EEC basis against the penetration of Japanese products?
    Mr. Tebbit: The most constructive thing that the British Government have done is to give a general welcome to Nissan so that it can build cars in Britain with British labour to the benefit of the British economy.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that we sympathise with him over the difficult decisions that he has to make about Government aid to the motor car industry? If we can afford to support British Leyland, can we afford to support Talbot as well, given that Peugeot has the main responsibility?
    Mr. Tebbit: It is not a matter of supporting any of these companies other than in the respect that we are—I trust—seeing British Leyland through to a condition in which it can return to the private sector. The Talbot company is not in the British public sector and the two cases are different.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the Minister realise that the State has given massive financial aid to the car industry in England? In those circumstences, what steps will the Government take to retain motor car manufacturing at Linwood, given that thousands of jobs are at stake in Scotland, in an area of high unemployment?
    Mr. Tebbit: On a previous occasion I said that companies are influenced as to where to invest in the United Kingdom not only by Government policies towards development grants and things of that nature, but by the past record of success, or otherwise, of investments in particular areas.

    Advance Factories (West Yorkshire)
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Industry why the English Industrial Estates Corporation's advance factory building programme for West Yorkshire is withdrawing funds from areas losing assisted area status approximately 18 months before the Government's decision is due to take effect.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): To conform with the Government's policy of concentrating regional assistance in the areas where it is most needed.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry not only

    585
    promised delegations from West Yorkshire that West Yorkshire's intermediate status would be reviewed but assured them that the application of this Act would not take place until July 1982? Is not this activity by the English Industrial Estates Corporation reneging on a promise by the Minister?
    Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend is to meet a deputation shortly. I ought to make it clear that we are spending more Government money and that there is a lot of private money coming in, so that the English Industrial Estates Corporation now has the largest programme of industrial investment that it has ever carried through. Nevertheless, there is still not enough money to build factories in every part of the assisted areas. In the past, many places in assisted areas have not received advance factories from the corporation. In the coming programme, only 34 of the 60 assisted areas which will keep that status after 1982 are being included.

    British Steel (Corporate Plan)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Industry what consultations there have been with the British Steel Corporation on the British Steel Corporation corporate plan.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): There have been frequent consultations between the Department and the BSC about the corporate plan, and I have had two discussions with the chairman.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When does the Secretary of State intend to approve the corporate plan? Prior to that approval, will he examine the document which I delivered to his Department last Friday and to the office of the Under-Secretary of State entitled "The Ingot Mould Foundry Rationalisation Review" of 4 February this year which challenges the commercial assumptions of the corporation which have led to the recommendation that the Distington foundry be closed? In the light of the publication of that document, will the right hon. Gentleman put it to the British Steel Corporation that it should re-evaluate Distington and suspend its decision pending that re-evaluation?
    Sir Keith Joseph: On the first part of the question, I hope to make a statement giving the response to the BSCs plan in the next few days. On the second part of the question, I understand that a document arrived this morning. From the little that I so far know of it, I judge that it is a matter for the management of BSC. I am sure that it will be studied by the BSC management.
    Mr. Michael Brown: When my right hon. Friend makes his announcement later in the week, will he give the Government's view on the viability of the corporate plan? Is he aware that, though I represent a steel constituency, I do not believe that the security of the steel industry is necessarily dependent on the amount of money that the Government can put into the industry? Finally, what assurances has my right hon. Friend sought from the British Steel Corporation to the effect that its corporate plan will be commercially viable?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The management and work force of BSC have to cope with the market as it evolves. We all hope that they will do their very best, but the market may continue to be hostile. No one can guarantee the outcome
    586
    for any part of BSC or for BSC as a whole. It is up to the management and work force to do their very best in the current economic circumstances.
    Mr. Hardy: As industrial recovery will have to occur some time, whether the present Administration desire it or not, are we not justified in questioning the adequacy of the envisaged capacity for steel production in the United Kingdom, especially in regard to special steels and, therefore, South Yorkshire, where world records have frequently been broken in the past and where they were again broken, in my constituency, a few days ago?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on one of the many difficult judgments that the management has to make. The Government also have to consider the cost to the taxpayer of keeping spare capacity. The house will know that the management proposes to keep some spare capacity unmanned for a future upturn.
    Mr. Grylls: When my right hon. Friend considers the corporate plan, will he bear in mind that it is important that the private sector steel companies are not damaged by subsidised competition, particularly in common areas such as bars and steel billets and engineering steel?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has also identified a crucially important subject about which the Government are deeply concerned. The Government have blessed the efforts by BSC and some parts of the private sector to see whether viable joint commercial partnerships can be evolved.
    Dr. John Cunningham: I should think that the private steel manufacturers must be quaking if they have been blessed by the Secretary of State, given his effect on other industries in our economy. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when he makes his statement about the MacGregor corporate plan, he will make clear exactly to what discussions between the British Steel Corporation and the private sector he has given his blessing, since clearly the Opposition also recognise the importance of many of the private sector steel makers?
    Sir Keith Joseph: There is no mystery here. The details are commercial and are for the companies concerned and for BSC. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) identified in his supplementary questions, those concerns in the private sector whose trade overlaps with that of BSC have been and are in discussion with BSC about possible partnerships.

    Northern Development Agency
    Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now establish a Northern Development Agency.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am not persuaded that the best interests of the North would be served by the creation of such an agency.
    Mr. Dormand: That is an extremely disappointing answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is nine months since my hon. Friends and I met him to discuss this matter? Does he realise how much the position in the Northern region has deteriorated since that time and that the need for an agency is greater than ever? Bearing in

    587
    mind the desperate need to have the Datsun car factory placed in the Northern region and the help that a development agency could give towards it, would it not be more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to lead the delegation that is to go to Japan later this month?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It was because of the respect that I have for the sincerity of the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman and many hon. Friends of his and of mine about the North that my colleagues and I took so long to come to a final decision about the idea of a development agency. I know about the deterioration of the position in the North, but it still remains true that future prospects for the North depend on the enterprise of the business community both in the North and in the country as a whole and the co-operation of the work force within the framework that the Government provide.
    Mr. Cowans: Is the Secretary of State aware of the imbalance created by the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency whem trying to attract jobs to the North? Will he correct that imbalance by setting up a development agency, bearing in mind the high unemployment there, and in doing so get away from the myth that the Government have turned their back on the North?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman expresses a fairly widely held view, but all the powers held by the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies respectively are held, though by different agencies, in the North. To add an agency on the lines of the Scottish or Welsh Development Agency for the North would not provide a single extra power but would provide an extra unit of bureaucracy which would confuse rather than increase the prospects for the North.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In his deliberations about the creation of a Northern development agency, will my right hon. Friend consider the point that if he acceded to such a request it would lead to a call for a North-Western development agency, since that area would suffer the same problems in relation to Scotland as a result of the creation of a Northern Development Agency?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not want to put ideas into the minds of other hon. Members. I do not think that the North-West would be the only other part of the country concerned.
    Mr. Orme: If the Secretary of State has rejected the concept of a development agency for the Northern region, what steps will he take to improve a deteriorating situation?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is yet again supporting the myth that prosperity comes from Government. That is not true. The Government can create as encouraging a framework as is practicable, and that is what we are in the process of doing. Prosperity comes from enterprise and co-operation.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Garel-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied that sufficient accommodation is available for new small businesses.
    Mr. MacGregor: As a result of actions taken by the Government, I am pleased to say that the availability of premises for new small businesses is improving to meet the continuing high level of demand.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he expand on a reply that he gave earlier to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and tell the House more about the role being played by the English Industrial Estates Corporation? Will he tell the House what impact, if any, the changes in the Finance Act 1980 to the industrial buildings allowance have made to the availability of small units?
    Mr. MacGregor: The Coopers and Lybrand study, which my Department commissioned, found that dominance of the public sector in this part of the market had led to little provision in recent years and had made it unattractive to private investors. The corporation has now involved the private sector. In addition to the extra £5 million that the Government have made available for small firm units, agreements to a total value of £30 million, including the £5 million, have been concluded with the private sector. These will provide upwards of 1,500 small units in the assisted areas.
    The Coopers and Lybrand report and the increase in the industrial building allowance for small units from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. has led, according to a recent survey, to a greater number of smaller industrial units being built by the private sector than has been the position for many years. Small units can make a valuable contribution to local economies and it is encouraging to see this progress.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his reply was a load of eyewash? Whether accommodation is available or whether it is not, the fact is that small businesses are going bankrupt at a record rate due to high interest rates and lack of demand, which is the fault of the Government of whom he is a member.
    Mr. MacGregor: The large building programme for small units is being filled by many demands from small firms and there are many small firms being created at the same time as others are in difficulties. One of the principal reasons for high interest rates is the high level of Government spending that the hon. Gentleman wants to see further increased. That would further increase interest rates and thus more adversely effect small firms rather than reverse the trend.
    Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the success of the taxation allowances and press him to give further allowances on larger buildings in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has noted the success of the scheme for small firms. Obviously I cannot pre-empt what my right hon. and learned Friend might wish to do in his Budget.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was a time when we used to seek the active intervention of the English Industrial Estates Corporation to build advance factories? Is he further aware that in the Northern region we have more than sufficient industrial space lying empty, as a result of the Government's policies, to take up all the unemployment in the region?
    Mr. MacGregor: Our experience with small units and experimental workshops has been extremely encouraging.

    589
    As the world recession lifts and as the economy picks up it will be possible for many more estates to take advantage of the facilities that are being provided.

    Computer Industry
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he plans any measures in the medium and long term aimed at assisting the strength and viability of the United Kingdom computer industry.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The United Kingdom computer industry must develop and market internationally competitive products if it is to remain strong and viable. The Govenment currently operate a number of measures aimed at encouraging the development of such products which will continue to make a substantial contribution to the medium and long-term future of the industry.
    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? Bearing in mind that the survival of the British computer industry is literally at stake in international terms and that the Government are bound to be involved in providing some form of public funds for high technology products and new electronics, will the Government now consider providing more as a proportion of the total research and development expenditure for British computer companies and more in comparison with their ferocious competitors in other countries?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I must emphasise the amount of support that is already available under three schemes that my Department operates. First, there is the MAP scheme—namely, the microelectronics applications programme, which involves £55 million over four years. Secondly, there is the microelectronics industry support scheme and, thirdly, the product and process development scheme, which involves many projects that are directed to microelectronics. My Deprtment provides research and development facilities and money for those projects. I am conscious of the value of that support.
    Mr. Eastham: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a few months ago the Minister of State was gloating about the privatisation of ICL? I do not know whether he has read the financial reports, but ICL is now running into a deficit of possibly £50 million. What is he prepared to do about this? Is he prepared to emulate the previous Labour Government and save the British computer industry and thousands of jobs or is he merely prepared idly to stand by?
    Mr. Baker: It is clear that ICL is experiencing the same problems as many companies in the recession. Orders are short and costs are high. The chairman said at the annual general meeting last week that the company is implementing a series of measures to conserve its cash flow, such as plant closure, no general wage increase and the disposal of surplus premises. These measures are prudent and necessary and will strengthen the company.
    Mr. Henderson: May we take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he at least is not making the mistake of confusing the totality of the British computer industry with the individual interests of one company?
    Mr. Baker: No, Sir. The British computer industry is composed of many companies that operate in hardware,
    590
    software, the mainframe area, mini-computers and microcomputers. There is a great deal of vitality and strength in the industry.
    Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister make it clear that he intends to guarantee the future of ICL?
    Mr. Baker: My Department has not received any specific and formal request for assistance from ICL. I understand that the company is having talks with its bankers. I saw from the chairman's statement last week that the company is putting in hand measures to strengthen its cash position. My Department is in frequent contact with ICL over its future research and development programme, as with all other major information technology companies. The public sector is a major user of ICL equipment.

    West Midlands
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he now expects to see progress in industrial revival within the West Midlands.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): The industrial revival of the West Midlands depends on reducing inflation, on the drive and enterprise of management, and on the understanding and co-operation of work forces.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister get away from those platitudes? When will he realise that so much of industry in the West Midlands and in the Black Country districts is being devastated as a result of Government policies? There are redundancies and closures daily and extensive short-time working. If the Government's policies have proved unsuccessful, why not change them? Why not change the dogma and allow our industry to prosper?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman ignores a number of factors that he should take into account in the interests of achieving a balance. The reduction of IDCs and the 100 per cent, grants for approved clearance schemes are only two of many measures that have had an effect on the West Midlands. There is also the enterprise zone at Dudley, which is not very far away from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman talks about platitudes, but he must realise that the prime target is the defeat of inflation, which will affect the West Midlands as well as everywhere else.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new but important problem in both the steel and the motor industries, which are important to the West Midlands, is that the Government must either reduce taxpayers' subsidies to these industries or give yet further and larger subsidies to the private sectors of the industries, so that they may compete against the State sector, which is in receipt of vast subsidies?
    Mr. Marshall: The question that my hon. Friend poses is in a sense a false one. Much depends on the prospects of the companies that feature in his question. However, he is right to stress, if we are talking about help to the West Midlands, that it was because of the wider implications for the West Midlands and the entire components industry that the BL decision was taken.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: While Labour Members welcome the decision on BL, will the Minister confirm

    591
    that later today his right hon. Friend is due to meet a delegation from Peugeot at the highest level which may have a direct bearing on the situation in the West Midlands for Talbot? Can we have an undertaking from the Minister that he will tackle the approach from Peugeot with a view to using the same strength of Government purchasing power and aid as we did with Datsun to encourage Peugeot to maintain an investment here?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member is somewhat adrift. That is a different question but the decisions that stem from the conversations with Peugeot are for the company to make.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: In the new deal with the Nissan company, will the Minister not overlook the great pool of highly trained and skilled labour in the motor industry in the West Midlands which could produce a real success for another car manufacturer, which would also bring work to the hard pressed components industry which, similarly has a large pool of highly skilled labour?
    Mr. Marshall: I am sure that the Nissan company will take careful note of my hon. Friend's remarks. He has reinforced some of the positive aspects of this successful inward investment.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Industry when the Government intend to publish their response to the ACARD report on information technology.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall be co-ordinating the Government's response to the ACARD's excellent report on informantion technology and that will be published soon.
    Mr. Henderson: In addition to the co-ordination that my hon. Friend will be arranging within his Department, will there be further co-ordination with other Departments? Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that, in a period of general recession, opportunities for profitable investment in information technology have sometimes been neglected? In particular, will he look at opportunites for carrying out legal reforms which would prevent any holding back of the development of the industry?
    Mr. Baker: On the last point, I am keen to remove any obstacles that will hinder the growth of the industry. They tend to be in the area of national and international regulations and so on. On the point concerning general investment, I am not aware of general withholding of investment in these industries. There is a good flow of investment going into the industries, which are a growth sector. On the first point, concerning co-ordination between Government Departments, my hon. Friend is right. The policies affecting the range of these industries, which range from satellites through to computer games, mean that several departments are involved.
    Mr. Forman: I recognise my hon. Friend's positive response to the excellent report. Will he undertake that the Government's public sector procurement policy will be to the fore in responding to the report? Will the Government do everything possible to initiate demonstration projects in the public sector?
    Mr. Baker: Public procurement is an important and powerful weapon which can be used constructively in this
    592
    area. I am arranging for cetain trial operations within my Department using Prestel/Viewdata, in which this country has a world lead. We must ensure that we do not lose it.

    British Leyland
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on progress in breaking up the corporate structure of BL; and what further discussions he has had with the chairman of BL.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I told the House on 26 January that the intention of the BL board is to draw the operating units into four distinct businesses—BL Cars, Land-Rover, Unipart and the Leyland Group. The new organisation of the Leyland group was announced on 19 January. I have had no discussions with Sir Michael Edwardes since my announcement of funding for BL on 26 January.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all pragmatic Conservatives will doubtless welcome the remarks of the Prime Minister in her speech last week that the Government will not hesitate to intervene from time to time in industry if they consider it to be necessary? In view of the enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend has sought to intervene in British Aerospace and British Airways, to assist in what one might call privatisation, will my right hon. Friend show the same enthusiasm and undertake the same activities with some of the component parts of BL?
    Sir Keith Joseph: We shall continue to leave judgments about the degree and timing of any sale of parts of BL to the management of BL.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State repudiate the damaging letter in The Times on Saturday from some of his hon. Friends about the selling of certain assets of British Leyland? Is he aware that that has already had a damaging effect on management morale in BL? Is it not time that the company was allowed to get on with the job and produce the cars and employment that is so essential?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friends are animated by the same desire as everyone else for the prospects of BL and all its parts. I hope that in their enthusiasm they will recognise that having appointed a management, the Government must leave it to the management to make the decisions.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the sale of currently profitable parts of BL would bring in train the possibility of a need for a greater subsidy for the other parts?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Without going into those probabilities, I must repeat that the decisions are for management.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In view of the impact of the Datsun project on BL, and the West Midlands area in particular, will the Secretary of State look seriously at the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) about the possibility—in view of the component base and the obvious advantages to the motor industry—of introducing a project of this sort to the West Midlands area?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I must repeat that the decision on such matters is for Nissan. The company has undertaken a feasibility study. Its final decision is yet to be made.

    Finniston Report
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Industry when the Government will announce further decisions on the implementation of the Finniston report.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with engineering institutions regarding a Royal Charter for the proposed Engineering Council.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: As explained by my hon. Friend in Committee on the Industry Bill on 15 January, we are at present discussing with those concerned the draft Royal Charter which has been placed in the Library. We hope to make rapid progress on the broad basis set out in the charter.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that a vital objective indentified by Finniston was the need to attract more well-qualified young people into the engineering industry? What discussions are taking place between his Department and the Department of Education and Science, particularly since the conference held to discuss that subject in the autumn, with a view to attracting more young people of the right calibre to undertake engineering education?
    Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important aspect of Finniston. My Department and the Department of Education and Science are in touch on these matters. We are awaiting the report of the conference and I expect that further consideration must depend on what comes from that report.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that it is reported throughout Europe that the United Kingdom educates the smallest number of young people between 16 and 19 years of age? Does he not agree that unless those young people have a good basic education they cannot take advantage of any training programme that the Government might inaugurate? Will he look at that problem to see what the Government can do to help those young people?
    Mr. Marshall: I understand and appreciate the problems. One of the prime tasks for the new engineering body when it is created must be to look at those problems. However, the Government also have a role to play and I shall take an interest in the questions the hon. Gentleman posed.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Minister confirm that the presidents of all the major engineering institutions reject the charter? Is he aware that the presidents are afraid that the engineering profession will become nationalised? Will he do everything possible to seek their co-operation in any future measures?
    Mr. Marshall: Yes, but my hon Friend will appreciate that when my right hon. Friend made his statement on 7 August there was a general welcome for that statement by the institutions. We have reached a substantial measure of agreement about the voluntary form that is proposed. That is the view of the vast majority of people with whom we have consulted, despite what my hon. Friend implies. We are discussing the fine print of the charter at this stage. It is not unusual to have some difficulty in reaching final agreement on the form of words. I hope and believe that it will be possible to reach agreement.

    British Steel
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his response to the plan for the future of the British Steel Corporation submitted to him by Mr. Ian MacGregor.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I expect to make a statement on the BSC corporate plan within the next few days.
    Mr. Chapman: As a curtain raiser to that statement will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past 10 years public subsidy to the British Steel Corporation has totalled no less than £5,000 million? In the light of that, will he say that it is not unreasonable for the hard-pressed taxpayer now to demand that any future subsidy should be seen patently to go in to sound capital investment rather than covering what appear to be ever-increasing operational losses?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the magnitude of the amounts that have been poured into the industry by the taxpayer. However, in the transition to a viable industry there are unavoidable costs, including closure and redundancy costs.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If the Government announce on Wednesday, as they probably will, further financial help to BSC—and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I approve of that—will the right hon. Gentleman also give the same financial help to other steelworks, such as Duport Steel in my constituency, to enable them to survive and provide more employment?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about subsidised competition with the private sector. We shall do our best to protect the private sector from that. The Government certainly want to reduce assistance to the BSC rather than provide assistance for the private sector.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when he makes his announcement he will have to give the BSC a large sum which will be much more than he wanted to give and much more than he said that he would have to give? Will he make sure that the money is not used—and there should be monitoring to ensure that this does not happen—to subsidise BSC's activities against the private sector?
    Sir Keith Joseph: That is precisely the point which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) emphasised and with which, in principle, I entirely agree. Where the private and public sectors overlap we are encouraging the evolution of joint partnerships.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although he has not yet acquiesced to the corporate plan, job losses are already taking place in Scotland, including some in my constituency, and the engineering section under the auspices of the BSC is closing in June? As the right hon. Gentleman has not yet acquiesced to the plan, why are closures taking place?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Under the legislation enacted by a Labour Government, who set up the BSC, the corporation needs no authority from me to close works or to dismiss staff.

    Consett
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures he is now taking to stimulate industrial redevelopment in the Consett area.
    Mr. MacGregor: Consett has been made a special development area. The Government have instituted a special programme of remedial measures involving factory building, derelict land clearance grants, special manpower measures, support for local road improvements and compensation to the local authorities for the loss of rate income.
    Mr. Watkins: Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's misconceived answer to an earlier question about the establishment of a Northern development agency, will the hon. Gentleman consider acting positively on the suggestion that I made during his recent visit to Consett to the affect that he should come to the area twice a year to chair meetings of the locally based strategy committee, which is doing so much to further industrial redevelopment in the area but which cannot do more without outside help, because of the sheer magnitude of the problem?
    Mr. MacGregor: I accept the magnitude of the problem and I was impressed by the constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman, local authorities and the community are taking to deal with the switch from decling industries to the new jobs of thefuture. I hope that it is clear that the Government have introduced a wide range of measures to try to help. As the hon. Gentleman knows, 58 factory units will be available shortly. As for my taking the chair at meetings of the strategy committee, the hon. Gentlena will appreciate that I have many responsibilities in other parts of the country and I cannot give an absolute commitment to come to his area twice a year. However, I shall do all that I can to keep a close interest in what is happening there.
    Sir William Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that his recent visit to the region was most welcome? Is he further aware that there is a general appreciation in the North-East that the Government have introduced a wide measure of assistance to the region and that they are conscious of our problems? Does he agree that there is great encouragement in the interest being shown by smaller developers in factories of 1,000 sq. ft. and less on our trading estates? Will he do all that he can to encourage smaller developers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. He will know that it was because of my interest in the problems of the Northern area that I made it one of the first places that I visited after my appointment. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about small developers. I am sure that they will make a useful and significant contribution.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does not the Minister's problem in dealing with the debacle at Consett and throughout the Northern region arise from the fact that there is a collapse in investment in British manufacturing industry? Is that not exemplified by the recent statement of the managing director of one of the largest chemical industries in this country that, because of the overvaluation of sterling and our high interest rates, his company will be concentrating its investment outside the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MacGregor: The problem of investment has existed in this country for years and has been coupled with the insufficiently effective use of the investment that we have had. The hon. Gentleman will know that among the major factors that affect business confidence are the rate of inflation and expectations about inflation. The fact that inflation is coming down is helpful.

    British Telecom
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Telecom to discuss investment in telecommunications.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: My right hon. Friend and I discuss telecommunications investment with the chairman of British Telecom as the need arises.
    Mr. Marlow: It may be a small point, but is my hon. Friend aware that British Telecom is investing a certain amount of money in yellow paint at the moment, with a view to painting telephone kiosks yellow? The reason given is that it is thinking of changing its livery. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could tell the chairman of British Telecom that the colour of telephone kiosks is part of our national heritage and is not only a matter concerning the livery of British Telecom.
    Mr. Baker: Livery matters are not for me. They are clearly for the Post Office and British Telecom. It must be for them to decide what colour they wish to paint their kiosks and vans.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it sensible to require British Telecom to finance its investment out of profits or would it be sufficient for it to do what any private business would do, namely to finance the cost of investment out of profits?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which the Government are considering. Last week, I accepted an amendment to the British Telecommunications Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) to allow British Telecom to borrow from sources other than the Government. However, I stress that that is a permissive power and it does not mean that we have yet agreed that British Telecom will do that, since there are much wider implications in allowing nationalised industries to borrow generally from the private sector.

    High Technology
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will carry out a study of the impact of public expenditure cuts on the efficiency and production capability of high technology firms; what plans he has to stimulate further investment in high technology; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government will continue to pursue their policy of support for technology through financial assistance under schemes such as product process development scheme, the microelectronics support programme and the microprocessor-applications project programme and by positive public purchasing. However successful, high technology enterprise cannot be created simply by doling out the taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Roberts: I am sure that, with his usual honesty, the Minister will admit that the greatest indictment of the Government's industrial policies is that productivity is falling rapidly. Does he accept that many high technology firms depend on public sector contracts and that many of those firms have been seriously damaged by the Government's public expenditure cuts?
    Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments in the first part of his question. I am sure that he meant them to be a general commendation and not a specific one. I agree, generally, with what the hon. Gentleman said about productivity, but productivity in high technology industries is not falling. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind specific high technology projects where investment funds are not forthcoming, will he please let me know?
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend convinced that planned savings in Government expenditure as a result of the proposed reform in the payment of sickness benefits will not put further pressure on the finances of high technology businesses and business generally?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is ingenious, but that is a wider question.
    Mr. Orme: Returning to the question of ICL, what will the Minister do to save that British company, which is so important at present?
    Mr. Baker: As I said earlier, I deprecate the use of such language. There has been no specific and formal request from the company for assistance, but we are in touch on the future of its research and development programme. I wish that hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, would remember the considerable strengths of ICL. It has 35 per cent, of the United Kingdom market, its export sales last year were £300 million and it has an installed overseas base of £2 million.

    Regional Assistance Grants
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to expedite the payment of regional assistance grants to industry.
    Mr. MacGregor: Applications for regional development grants are now being approved markedly quicker than last year. Payment of approved applications remains subject to the four months' deferment announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 June 1979.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister say what protests he is getting from industry? Is he aware that the paper industry in my constituency has complained to me specifically about slowness in the payment of grants, to the embarrassment and disadvantage of those firms?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of some complaints which I have received since my appointment. I point out, however, that there has been considerable progress. Last year, the average time was about 22 weeks. It is now between three and four months. I shall continue to take a personal interest in this question.

    Prestel/Viewdata
    Mr. Richard Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he has to increase the use of Prestel/Viewdata services in the public sector.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: In Prestel/Viewdata we have a world lead, and I wish to ensure that effective uses are found for this in the public sector as soon as possible. I have put in hand in the Department a pilot scheme linking London and the regional offices which should go live this summer. Other trial projects are in hand, and I have an operational set in my own office.
    Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. What steps are the Government taking to encourage exports of these systems?
    Mr. Baker: As I have said, this is a skill in which Britain literally has a world lead. We have a better system than the French or Canadians, and the Americans do not have one. I am considering various proposals for exploiting this advantage overseas. So often in the past British technology has not been exploited and marketed in the way that it should have been.

    Medical Privilege
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the rights of doctors to refuse to reveal to courts matters related to them in confidence by patients.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): None, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the recent case in which a psychiatric nurse was required to reveal in court information of a highly confidential nature given to her by a patient? Has not the time come when doctors, nurses and, indeed, priests should be given the came protection regarding confidential informantion given to them as at present lies within the realm of privilege in respect of informantion given by clients to lawyers?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that one always has to strike a balance between the interests of maintaining a confidential relationship and the interests of justice. This matter was considered in 1977 by the Law Reform Committee, which concluded that no requirement was necessary for it. It is within the terms of reference of the Law Commission's forthcoming report on the law of confidentiality. It may be that something will be set out in the report.
    Mr. Archer: Is not this one more example of the question how far the public interest requires that information disclosed in confidence for one purpose should not be used for a different purpose? Would not Mr. Attorney agree that this is the question that arose in the Harriet Harman case? Is it not a little unfair that questions of the balance of public interest should be left to the courts when they are essentially political questions? Will he suggest at some stage to his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that either a Royal Commission or some other form of inquiry should consider the whole question?
    The Attorney-General: The question refers to confidentiality so far as doctors are concerned. That is what I was answering.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Attorney-General examine the new possibilities that have emerged for general practitioners to use more software and computerised information? Will he make sure that there is no way in

    599
    which confidentiality is broken, taking into account, for example, the needs of people on supplementary benefit, those receiving allowances and similar benefit? Does he agree that such breaches would be a great disadvantage to the patient of the general practitioner?
    Mr. Attorney-General: As this practice develops, the more it will be necessary to keep an eye on the consequences of it.

    Armed Forces (Criminal Proceedings)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Attorney-General what criteria are used when deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings against members of the Armed Forces for alleged offences arising out of the performance of their duties when assisting the civil authorities.
    The Attorney-General: The Director uses the same basic criteria in all cases whether they involve members of the Armed Forces or not.
    Mr. Canavan: Although the Armed Forces have an unenviable task when dealing with terrorists, does the Attorney-General agree that it would be a deplorable legal precedent in this country for members of the Armed Forces to be given immunity from prosecution for carrying out summary execution of terrorists, especially after they have given themselves up? Was any such immunity from prosecution, or any order for summary execution, approved by either the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary in the case of the SAS raid on the Iranian embassy.
    The Attorney-General: I must say that I am horrified by that question. There was a certain amount of confusion in the evidence. The matter has been reviewed, in part, in the trial at the Old Bailey, although not all the prosecution evidence was called. It was considered with care at an inquest with a coroner's jury last week. So far as I am concerned the courage and determination shown by those involved, which saved an unknown number of lives of innocent hostages, is a matter of pride for us all. I would especially like to add my admiration for the conduct of police constable Trevor Lock.
    Sir Hugh Fraser: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this country, compared with any other in the world, shows amazing scrupulosity in the discharge of the function of the State investigating all events pertaining to disaster or tragedy such as that which occurred at the Iranian embassy? This is an attribute of which we might be proud. Surely, it is incredible that a member of the Opposition should try to damage this force—I happen to be a former member of the SAS—and use the House of Commons to attack what were found by the jury to be killings in the interests of the pursuit of the national interest?
    The Attorney-General: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The evidence was reviewed both by the Director and myself. There was no evidence upon which proceedings in relation to the deaths of those terrorists could be justified.
    Mr. John Morris: No one in the House would want to detract from the congratulations offered on the bravery of all those who were concerned in that incident. I say that as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence. Do I
    600
    understand from the Attorney-General's earlier remarks that equality before the law is a paramount consideration and, secondly, that, where an offence has been committed, the question of prosecution is examined on the same basis, whoever is involved?
    The Attorney-General: The answer that I gave to the initial question was that the criteria are the same in all cases. The criteria that would apply here are the same as the test which is applied, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

    Judges (Tenure)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to set an age limit on the tenure of office of those judges who are not at present covered by age limits.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to him on 9 June last, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Meacher: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are judges over the age of 80 whose judgments are so regularly eccentric and so idiosyncratically out of touch with modern views that they are constantly having to be overturned at a higher level? Does he not agree that geriatric judges with nineteenth-century social ad political prejudice only bring the rule of law into disrepute? It is reasonable that an age limit of 70 should be imposed.
    The Attorney-General: There is only one judge over 80 at the moment.
    Mr. Winnick: Name him.
    The Attorney-General: He reached his eighty-second birthday last week and I would like to congratulate him on it. It is not for me to comment on individual decisions, some of which may be subject to appeal. In 1959 Parliament decided that a statutory retirement age for judges should be imposed. At the same time, Parliament did not impose that upon those who were already appointed judges.
    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is not Lord Denning probably the best-known judge in the world? Are not these attacks on him highly resented by everyone who has had the privilege of appearing before him?
    The Attorney-General: If, indeed, there is to be criticism of a judge, there is a well known, recognised parliamentary process for dealing with that situation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not have the knowledge of the Attorney-General that there was only one judge aged over 80, or I would have intervened. The Attorney-General is right. If anyone wishes to criticise a judge in this place, he should first table a motion on the Order Paper and seek to have it debated.
    Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Bearing in mind the usual rules about the principle of equality under the law, will the Attorney-General advance any good reason why judges should not be subject to the usual retirement age rules?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to complain if his

    601
    contract were altered after he had signed it and had acted under it for a period of time. That is what would happen here. Parliament in 1959 decided not to affect the contracts of those who were already appointed.
    Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I get it right? Is it the case that under our rules we can say nice things about judges but cannot say nasty things about them?
    Mr. Speaker: That applies to many people.

Inner Cities Policy
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the review of inner city policy.
The inner city partnership and programme authority arrangements will continue, but I have taken steps to simplify their procedures and intend to consult local authorities very soon on guidelines that will enable programmes to be more efficiently handled.
The private sector should be encouraged to play the fullest possible part. I therefore intend to make effective consultation with local industry and commerce a prior condition of providing urban programme grant. The voluntary sector can also contribute much, and should also be consulted.
I have decided not to make any changes now in the list of authorities with partnership or programme authority status, or designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. This reflects my assessment of the latest evidence, the constraints on public expenditure and the need to allow time to measure the impact.
I have already announced, subject to parliamentary approval, my intention to establish two new urban development corporations in London docklands and Merseyside. The creation of the London Docklands Developments Corporation will mean the end of the existing partnership arrangements in London docklands, to be succeeded by separate arrangements.
We are planning significant increases in expenditure on inner city regeneration—the total provision in 1981–82 at 1980 survey prices will be some £224 million. Of that, some £158 million will go to the urban programme and £66 million to the two corporations. This latter figure includes some moneys for land acquisition; in addition, the urban development corporations may be able to acquire and redevelop some further land owned by statutory undertakers.
Allocations under the main programme, which, despite reductions, remain the largest components of public investment in inner cities, will continue, where possible, to take into account their needs.
Inner cities remain vitally important to the health of the country. This Government have ensured that more schemes under the urban programme are being aimed at strengthening the local economies and improving the environment, though there will continue to be a role for social and community projects. Our aim remains to make these places where people want to live and work, and where the private investor is prepared to put his money. The changes that I have made and intend to make should ensure that we can mobilise resources as effectively as possible to tackle the problems.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Why does the right hon. Gentleman never tell the House the straight truth? Why is he pretending that there is an increase in expenditure on the urban programme when, in fact, he is cutting the main urban programme for 1981–82 by 26 per cent. from the sums of money allocated in the 1979 White Paper?
Why does not the right hon. Gentleman also take into account his cut in rate support grant for the metropolitan
604
areas of £440 million, a 10 per cent. reduction? Why does he not take into account his cut of 27 per cent. in the housing investment programme, including a cut of 36 per cent. in London?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
"We cannot afford the waste of resources, of people and of land, represented by areas of dereliction and desolation around our city centres. We cannot risk the build-up of frustration and anger to which such decay gives rise,"
with the effect on
"the elderly, the poor, the new immigrant communities"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that those are the very words that he used in his statement on inner cities policy in September 1979? Is he aware that it is his victimisation of the inner city areas that is bringing about the very desolation, frustration and anger of which he spoke?
Mr. Heseltine: The House will realise that it is a curious sort of victimisation when one announces a record amount of money available to deal with the problem—more than the House has ever been asked to consider.
The right hon. Gentleman is not living in a real world when he tries to compare the increases that I am announcing—increases over past expenditure—with a notional White Paper published by a Government who were subsequently defeated and who had no prospect whatsoever of carrying out those plans if they had been elected.
I totally support the right hon. Gentleman's quotation of my expressed concern about the problems of dereliction in these areas. It was precisely because I felt such concern that I persuaded my colleagues that we should include the proposals for the urban development corporations and the land registers, which were the first really effective attempts to bring together in one organisation the methods needed to cater for the problems.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome the Government's recommitment to the revitalisation of the inner areas, but does my right hon. Friend agree that a number of other Government Departments and local authorities are doing various things that negate his continued efforts to revive the inner cities? For example, the favouring of beet sugar rather than cane sugar is resulting in Tate and Lyle closing its factory in the inner city of Liverpool, which means the loss of 1,600 jobs and £½ million of rate income. There is little point in announcing more money for partnership if the inner city is denuded of 1,600 jobs and £½ million of rate income.
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend shares my concern about the problems of trying to create a better infrastructure and a better climate in the inner cities, but I must ask him to talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the specific problems of the cane sugar industry.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that part of docklands contained within the borough of Tower Hamlets there has been a notable and rapid increase in the number of entrepreneurs, both large and small, being brought in for job creation and environmental improvement, all of which are doing very well, and that the coming of the urban development corporation will merely throw a spanner into those works?
Mr. Heseltine: It is an extremely cost-effective spanner, in view of the amount of extra resource that will be available, together with the more effective mechanism to cater for the problems. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what I am doing, following the original statement about inner city problems made by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), is to take the concept that the right hon. Gentleman first announced and to give it more public resources and a framework within which it can be more effectively administered.
Mr. David Alton: How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to involve private industry? Will it be through the chambers of commerce? I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's determination to involve the voluntary sector. How is that to be done? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the relationship between the partnership committee and the urban development corporation on Merseyside, in view of his statement on the urban development corporation and the partnership committee in London?
Mr. Heseltine: The method of involving the private sector will, in the case of most of the urban programme areas and certainly the Liverpool one, involve consultation with the chambers of commerce, as the most obvious of various candidates that we could consult.
The form of consultation with the voluntary sector is more difficult, because it is harder to identify so clearly the particular organisation that could represent the bodies in it. Nevertheless, as chairman of that urban programme partnership I shall want to see that proper consultation takes place.
The relationship between the partnership committee and the urban development corporation will be achieved by the close inter-relationship between local authorities and the Government in both organisations.
Mr. Fred Silvester: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are difficulties with regard to inner and outer wards of cities? Is he further aware that the burden of the special problems of the inner cities is to some extent already borne by the ratepayers of the outer wards, who are receiving no benefit under his scheme? Has he given any thought to that problem?
Mr. Heseltine: That brings into focus the difficulty of the outer areas having to bear, through the rate fund, the problems of the inner areas. One of the factors that I have in mind in trying to get more economic momentum into inner city areas is that they should be able to cope with their problems.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that he announced today indicate that the city of Manchester will receive about £5 million, which is precisely the amount that it received last year and the year before? Bearing in mind that that city has lost £12 million million in housing subsidies, £10 million in the loss of assisted area status, and £18 million because the rate support block grant does not take account of inner city problems, will the Secretary of State examine the finance that is available to the city?
Mr. Heseltine: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have noticed that the heavy over-reliance on public expenditure in the city of Manchester has led to a burden on the ratepayers there that is destroying far more jobs than public subsidy could ever
606
create. We have pursued these policies in an attempt to ensure that the inflationary rate increases are reduced. It is now up to local authorities to respond to them, and I am delighted that so many are doing so.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: I recognise that the burden of my right hon. Friend's statement is concerned with the run-down areas of inner cities, but does he not agree that there are other areas, particularly in London, that have suffered unduly from the burden of tourism? Will he examine ways, perhaps through the rate support grant, to protect the residents against that burden?
Mr. Heseltine: During the course of the next 12 months we shall have wide and detailed discussions on the factors that will influence the distribution of the rate support grant, and I welcome that. However, there are opportunities for boroughs such as that of my hon. Friend to make applications, through the traditional urban programme, for schemes, particularly small ones, that may help economic regeneration or the voluntary sector, and we consider them sympathetically.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: While I welcome anything that can be done to help the deprived areas, may I ask the Secretary of State how he can cut public expenditure, preventing the London borough of Newham from improving its town hall to allow the physically disabled to enter it, especially in the International Year of Disabled People, and then give further money for other development schemes? Surely the local authority should be able to improve its town hall to enable the physically disabled to go in or out, and surely its budget should not be cut so that money can be given to other programmes?
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman checks on the details of the case that he mentioned he will find that under the flexibility that we have given local authorities on capital expenditure as from next April they are able to cost all their programmes and pursue their priorities. They already have the ability to pursue their priorities on revenue matters. To the best of my knowledge—I will check—there is no way in which it can be suggested that I am responsible for the changes that the hon. Gentleman pointed out. With regard to his general point, the reason why it is right to ask the local authorities to reduce their revenue expenditure, and therefore their rate costs, is partly that I want to release resources for capital expenditure. I am trying to do that now in the East End of London.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will co-operate, I shall call those who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Den Dover: I welcome the need for consultation with the private sector, but will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give further consideration to the possible membership of the private sector on the partnership committees? Does he not agree that that could lead to better and more effective spending and control of the money, and to a better return for that money?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, but that is probably not the right way to proceed. The partnership committees are already far too large, and all the people who attend the meetings, which run to perhaps 40 or 50 people, realise that this is not a way

607
to make effective progress. To add more people would probably slow up the procedures. I want to ensure that the details of the programmes are more fully considered and explored with the private sector before decisions are made by local authorities and the Government.
Mr. Greville Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the vast problems of estates that are urban but are not in inner cities, which are hugely disadvantaged and increasingly decimated—for example, the Braunstone estate, in my constituency? Will he consider the definition of an inner city in order to try to bring help to those people who are gravely affected by all the cuts, particularly those in the housing sector?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it is for local authorities to pursue their priorities in the light of the resources that are available to them. As part of the review, I have had to consider whether I would be wise to spread more widely the limited resources that are available in the urban programme. I have taken the view that for the time being we should stick with the authorities that were originally chosen and give a longer period of experimentation, so that we can assess the working of the programme in an area that is more concentrated than it would otherwise have been.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Was the Secretary of State speaking with tongue in cheek when he spoke about improved consultations with private industry? With regard to Hackney, is he aware that his measures have emasculated private industry and dealt the partnership scheme a mortal blow? Can he say whether the overall effects of his package will improve or diminish the prospects of partnership in Hackney?
Mr Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's memory is not so short that he will have forgotten the reason why there has been so much devastation in the private sector. It is because of the high cost of borrowing, the over-extended programmes for the public sector and the consequent high costs of rates. The Government's policies are essential in order to get those matters in balance.
Mr. John Sever: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he said in reply to a supplementary question a few moments-ago that he and other Ministers found it difficult to interpret what the voluntary organisations were saying to the partnership committees? If that is so, does he not accept that in central Birmingham there is no difficulty in finding out what needs to be done? Is he aware that certain projects are in need of urgent attention, and that the answer to the problem is not a matter of finding a list but of finding the money to pay for the items on the list?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not disagree significantly with the hon. Gentleman. There is no problem in finding a list of projects, but there is difficulty in finding a body that can be claimed to represent the whole of the voluntary sector. It is easier to find such a body in the private sector. However, that does not in any way diminish the need to involve the voluntary sector. I was talking purely about the processes of consultation.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision to continue the designation of Blackburn and other areas will be greeted with some relief? Is he further aware that the severe cuts that he has
608
made in the main programmes that he has made have greatly undermined the borough's ability to deal with the jobs and housing crises in the area? Does he not accept that the number of homes that will be started this year is four, compared with 129 last year, and that the cutting of assisted area status has contributed to the doubling of unemployment over the last 18 months? Is he willing to examine closely the amount of main programme money for inner city area? If he is not, his policy approach will be greeted with a great deal of scepticism.
Mr. Heseltine: Obviously, all Ministers will take those factors into account when allocating their resources. The inner cities receive proper consideration for whatever resources are available for distribution. Perhaps the more serious aspect of the urban programme allocations—an aspect that is of great concern to me—is that since the previous Secretary of State announced the programme, year by year a far higher proportion of available resources has already been pre-empted by the revenue consequences of earlier schemes. As we allocate next year's resources we are finding that there is far less money available, not because new, specifically urban programme schemes have been allocated in the past but because the main programmes have pre-empted a considerable part of the previous urban programme. I am trying—I intend to continue to try in the future—to remove the revenue implications of past schemes in order to have available for annual disposal a far higher proportion of new capital projects.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to extend partnership areas? How, for instance, can he justify the fact that the urban development corporation in Merseyside is to extend into my constituency of Bootle but that that part of the Sefton local authority area is not included in the partnership agreement along with Liverpool, when the same inner city conditions pertain in that part of Sefton as pertain in Mersyside? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the £66 million allocated to urban development corporations will be spent on Merseyside and what percentage will be spent in London? People in Merseyside are sceptical about the value of the urban development corporation, and they would be less sceptical if they knew that there was to be a significant amount of public money available for public initiatives and that all the money was not going to London.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will remember, on reflection, that the reaction on Merseyside to the urban development corporation has been extremely favourable. When they learn today that about one-quarter of the funds that I have announced are to flow into Merseyside they will realise that this is a very significant increase in the Government's commitment to the Merseyside area.
As for the hon. Gentleman's specific questions about the areas and the lines that we have had to choose, I am the first to say that no one can pretend that these are as precise or as absolute as the standards that, ideally, one would want. We have had to make a judgment and, broadly, we have supported the judgment of the previous Secretary of State. There are endless anomalies, but wherever we change we shall simply throw up more anomalies. We take the view that as we have not the

609
resources to increase dramatically the amount of the commitment that we are making it is as well to stay where we are for the time being.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: The right hon. Gentleman will know better than most hon. Members the enormous financial difficulties facing inner city local authorities as a consequence of other decisions that he has made in relation to the rate support grant. Looking at it in relation to urban aid, is there not a serious danger that as urban aid schemes come to an end local authorities will not have the money to continue them and, therefore, it will be even harder for new schemes to get off the ground? What is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the net effect of the money that he has announced for urban aid? Will most of it simply go to keeping old schemes going, with the result that there will be no new ones?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is very much on the point that I was trying to make in relation to my concern about the hangover of past revenue commitments. I find, for example, that in this year—1980–81—out of a total of £181 million at 1980 survey prices, £67 million—more than one-third—is committed to paying revenue implications of previous years. I want to get that down to a much lower figure in order to free resources every year for more capital schemes. As each scheme is judged on its merits, and as each is free standing, provided that the Government keep up the amount of commitment to the urban programme there is no reason why resources should not be available in any given year for additional new schemes.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is the Secretary of State aware that he is in danger of going down in history as a one-man neutron bomb, devastating people's lives and leaving properties empty and decaying? Is he aware that housing lists are growing whilst public and private house building has almost ground to a halt and builders are going bankrupt, and that there is no way, important as it is, that the voluntary sector can fill the gap? Is not this a half-hearted and pathetic attempt, which does not even maintain the status quo?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should remember that public sector housing is today the subject of a capital allocation of more than £2 billion and that the Housing Corporation has expenditure programmes of more than £400 million. It makes no sense to describe the problem in the terms that the hon. Gentleman does. If we pursued higher revenue expenditure programmes in the areas about which the hon. Gentleman questions me it would lead automatically to higher levels of rates, and that would accelerate the industrial decline that we are trying to avoid.
Mr. Ken Eastham: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his shabby remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), who referred to Manchester and its problems? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that as a direct result of his policies and the wicked denial of rate support grant he has cost the city about £17 million, which will greatly accentuate the problems of the inner city. What is the Government's policy towards the commitment of the Labour Government? Are they still committed to a 10-year programme for the inner cities?
Mr. Heseltine: Since I have announced a record amount of support for inner cities, it was my hope that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that it is an indication of the commitment that I have to this aspect of my policy. However, I must tell him that the need for economies in local government is self-evident everywhere, otherwise the implications for the rates and the burden on the private sector are unbearable. The higher the levels of rate increases, the more jobs will be lost as a direct consequence. This is the trade-off that must be understood by local authorities as they fix rate levels for the coming year.
Mr. Speaker: I have received notice of three applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall call them in the order in which they were submitted to me.

Collier "Nellie M"
Mr. Wm. Ross: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the sinking of the British vessel, the 'Nellie M', in Lough Foyle on the night of Friday-Saturday last by an IRA pirate gang."
I believe that this is a very important matter for my constituents and for national defence because, since 1920, when the Republic of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom, the sea boundaries have never yet been decided. To this day, no chart or map with an international boundary line drawn on it exists for Carlingford Lough or Lough Foyle. The result is that this vessel having been attacked and sunk, there is no way of knowing in whose waters the wreck now rests.
This is a matter that should have urgent consideration. It must be resolved before the wreck is dealt with, in order to decide who is responsible for it. I believe that it would be very dangerous for the nation to allow our claim to the waters of Lough Foyle to go by default, in view of the problems that could be created for national defence and for the commercial activities of my constituents.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the sinking of the British vessel, the 'Nellie M' in Lough Foyle on the night of Friday-Saturday last by an IRA pirate gang."
The House will have listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. He has undoubtedly brought our attention to an important matter. But he knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Litherland High School
Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

611
"the accusations of excessive beatings at Litherland high school, Sterrix Lane, in my constituency, and what seems to be a breakdown in law and order at this school."
This matter is specific because, it relates to a secondary high school that, over the last two weeks, has featured in the news since a school teacher at the school, Mr. Alan Corkish, revealed that 1,895 slipperings had occurred over the last four terms—which is eight a day and one every 35 minutes in respect of only 400 boys—including such cases as one boy being beaten seven times and another five times in a two-week period.
Even the advocates of corporal punishment in schools claim that it should be used only as a last resort, for its deterrent value. This is far from the situation in Litherland school, where violence, institutionalised in the way that it is, seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
The matter is important, because recently there seems to have been an almost complete breakdown in the school's functioning and discipline. Accusations are being made of such things as illicit beatings, over and above those that I have mentioned already, not being recorded in the punishment book, thus breaching Government regulations. They include allegations of the use of an unorthodox cane, an unauthorised teacher giving corporal punishment, and regular slappings and cloutings, resulting in one teacher appearing before the governing body following complaints from parents.
Near-riots seem to have broken out in the school, including allegations of teachers turning a hosepipe On children. These riots or demonstrations seem to be inspired by the children themselves, on behalf of Alan Corkish, the teacher who made public the school punishment book and who is to attend a disciplinary hearing of the school governors tonight. No disciplinary action is necessary. Either the head and the governors of the school are not ashamed of their punishment book and should not object to it being made public, or they are ashamed and Alan Corkish was more than right to make it public.
This matter is crying out for urgent consideration by the House for two important and urgent reasons. First, the House has been misled by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his Under-Secretary. On Friday 6 February I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science
"if he will arrange for Her Majesty's inspectors to visit Litherland high school, Bootle, in the light of accusations of excessive punishment in that school."
The Under-Secretary replied:
"Discipline within the school is a matter for the head teacher, acting within any guidelines issued by the local education authority. It is not the function of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to investigate complaints about cases of corporal punisliments."— [Official Report, 6 February 1981; Vol. 998 c. 225.]
That reply is not only totally inadequate but inaccurate, as the Secretary of State has power to intervene in circumstances such as those pertaining at Litherland High School. Under the Education Act 1944—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is testing the patience of the House in relation to our Standing Order No. 9 procedure. He is also endangering it. The hon. Gentleman cannot make the speech that he would make if I were to grant his application.
Mr. Roberts: Finally then, this matter needs to be debated urgently, mainly because the Secretary of State
612
has already misled the House. Under the Education Act 1944 he has the power to intervene. I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the House.
Therefore, I hope that you will be able to grant an emergency debate, Mr. Speaker, in order to clear the air in my constituency and in the House and to satisfy the parents of the children at the school, if no one else.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the accusations of excessive beatings at Litherland high school, Sterrix Lane, in the hon. Member's constituency, and. what seems to be a breakdown in law and order at this school."
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, that I cannot submit his application to the House.

National Union of Seamen (Dispute)
Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the dispute between the General Council of British Shipping and the National Union of Seamen."
The matter is clearly specific. The dispute has entered its fifth week. Efforts to conciliate by ACAS—the last being on Saturday—have failed and the dispute now shows every sign of being stepped up.
The matter is also of great importance. Merchant shipping is a vital industry to the economy, not least for the invisible earnings which it produces. The security and well-being of our seafarers is essential for the future prosperity of that industry. The dispute is damaging to the merchant fleet, the seamen and the nation's trading position. Ships are tied up all over the world.
The matter is urgent because each day the situation appears to deteriorate further, with attitudes hardening on both sides and with the ensuing bitterness which could seriously prejudice industrial relations for years to come.
The Government have a role and duty which so far the Department of Trade has refused to fulfil. They should use every opportunity at their command now—as the Opposition have consistently asserted—to seek to persuade both sides to accept independent arbitration with the widest terms of reference, incorporating not only the offer made by the employers and the payment of proper overtime earnings, which is the heart of the dispute, but the issue of the industry's international competitiveness, with particular reference to the developed maritime nations.
The door of arbitration is just ajar. The Government should see that it is now opened wide. The House of Commons should urgently be given the chance to debate this matter which is so important to our national interests and to put to the test the decision of the Government to stand back and abdicate responsibility.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

613
"the dispute between the General Council of British Shipping and the National Union of Seamen."
The House will have listened with considerable concern to what the hon. Gentleman said in giving the reasons why we should have a debate. The House will be well aware that this procedure is by no means the only way in which this matter can be discussed. My powers are strictly limited by the House on the question whether the matter is of such a nature that it must be discussed tonight or tomorrow. That is the extent of the powers that the House has given me.
As the House knows, I am directed to give no reasons for my decision but to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order. I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, that I cannot submit his application to the House.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATONS BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the International Organisations Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Gummer.]
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Gummer.]
PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (CONSULAR COMPLAINTS) BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Orders of the Day

  Employment and Training Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I apologise to the House for the erratum concerning the explanatory and financial memorandum, in which line 3 was left out by mistake. It is now being reprinted and will be put right before the weekend. I apologise to the House for that important omission.
  I believe that it will be convenient for the House if I take the two main purposes of the Bill—the powers they confer, and the changes they make—and then discuss them in terms of the nation's training needs. Dealing with the Bill in that way may enable the House to understand why the Government believe that the change in powers is necessary and will no doubt assist the House in giving me its views on an immensely important and difficult subject. I also hope that my speech will show that this is not as controversial a Bill as some hon. Members are prepared to think.
  The amendments introduced by clause 1 are particularly important because they will allow greater flexibility in taking decisions than the current law would allow. It is right that decisions about the future pattern of industrial training boards should rest with me, because I am the Minister accountable to Parliament. Clause 1 therefore proposes that the Secretary of State should have power to create, abolish or change the scope of an industrial training board in consultation with the Manpower Services Commission and not, as at present, only in accordance with a recommendation of the commission. The commission's views will continue to carry great authority, but it is important that I should not be restricted in the range of options open in determining the future structure of the training system. As I shall seek to show, diverse views may be put to the Manpower Services Commission which will make it impossible for it to make recommendations. It would be unsatisfactory if I could not act, if I had to wait until the review was over before putting any proposals to Parliament.
  The current review of industrial training arrangements by the commission will be the first comprehensive review of its kind. The existing legal requirements envisage consultation with interested parties only on specific propositions and are not apt for the purpose of such a wide-ranging review as now envisaged. Clause 1 therefore provides for a more flexible consultation procedure in future, and will enable me to act on the outcome of the review being undertaken.
  Clause 2 will enable all expenses of an industrial training board, including operating and administrative expenses, to be met from money raised by a levy on employers, as was the position before the coming into force of the Employment and Training Act 1973. Clause 2 will also enable boards to use to defray their operating expenses money derived from levies imposed before the enactment of the Bill.
  These provisions are necessary as a result of the Government's decision to withdraw Exchequer funding of

  615
  boards' operating costs. I should like to remind the House that when industrial training boards were first established under the 1964 Act their operating costs were charged to their industries. However, when firms became entitled to exemption from levy if they trained to meet their own needs, it meant that relatively few firms might remain liable to pay levy. Obviously they could not be expected to pay all the operating expenses. Provision was therefore made in the 1973 Act accordingly, and since then the Government have met the cost of the operating expenses. In many respects, this has not worked well. It has led to an increase in bureaucracy and inefficiency and many complications about the pay and conditions of staff.
  The MSC review body recommended therefore that boards' operating costs should once again become a charge on their industries but, as one would expect, with some dissenting voices. The CBI commissionerss did not feel able to support the recommendation while the TUC commissioners were prepared for the transfer to be phased over three years. I think this reiterates the point that at the end of the day it is necessary for the Minister to have power to act.
  After careful consideration we decided that all the boards' operating costs which since 1974 have been met from public funds should be transferred to industry within a relatively short time scale. Basically we consider it right in principle that where a board continues on a statutory basis the running costs of that board should be met by the employers concerned. Secondly, we agree with the MSC review body that it is an important way of increasing the boards' accountability to their own industries.
  However, I recognise the difficulties. It is not our wish to impose on industry additional burdens at this difficult time. The extent of the future costs will not emerge until the review has been completed, and it is clear which boards are to remain, and what is to be their scope. The Government will therefore be prepared to consider the timing of the end of Exchequer support in the light of the outcome of the review. The provisions of clause 2 are therefore to be brought into force by a commencement order. When clause 2 is in force it will of course be for the industries concerned to ensure that their boards keep down their administrative costs.
  Before leaving the subject of boards' powers to raise levies I would draw the House's attention to an important change recommended by the review body which we have decided not to implement. The review body considered that boards had been unduly restricted by the need to apply for an affirmative resolution of both Houses if they wanted to raise a levy which represents more than 1 per cent unit of the money employers had spent on wages and salaries in any one year. This recommendation was heavily criticised in the comments received during the consultation period.
  I have examined these criticisms carefully and concluded that it would not be right, particularly at a time when boards may be raising levies to meet their own operating costs, to remove this important control mechanism. In my view, a levy of more than 1 per cent. should remain subject to affirmative resolution, of the House.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: If there is still to be a statutory limitation on the levy but the boards have
  616
  to carry operating costs as well as other costs, does that not mean that they will have fewer resources to devote to training as such?
  Mr. Prior: Not necessarily, because some boards have levies of less than 1 per cent., so there is some room there. If they feel that their operating costs cannot be met from a levy of 1 per cent., it will be up to them to decide whether they wish to come to the House for an affirmative resolution to permit them to go above 1 per cent. Alternatively, a number of chairmen of boards have told me that they believe that they can keep their operating costs down a good deal more than they are at present. That is one purpose on which I am very keen.
  One of the main points constantly put to me by chairmen of boards is that the growth of bureaucracy in dealing with the Manpower Services Commission and in turn with the Department of Employment and in turn with the Civil Service Department has added considerably both to the time spent and to the costs of running the boards. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said need happen, but we can examine it in greater detail as the debate goes on.
  These are the main issues covered by the Bill. My hon. Friend will of course be prepared to deal with the other clauses and other points which hon. Members wish to raise, but I wanted to give the House the logic behind what the Government seek to do. I should now like to amplify it by looking at these proposals in the context of training policy generally.
  In doing so, I should like to remind the House that in my speech in the debate on the Loyal Address on 26 November last year I set out the Government's broad objectives on training. I also announced then that as one element in our overall policy we would be reviewing the system of industrial training boards.
  I believe it is right, therefore, to view the Bill principally as an enabling measure. The Bill does not prescribe this or that particular reform. Its purpose instead is to enable reforms to be made in the operation and structure of ITBs. It is preparing the ground so that the necessary changes can be made following the outcome of the present review, which is due to finish in the summer.
  I want the House to be clear about the context of the review and of the Bill within the Government's overaJl policy on training. I think that there would be agreement on all sides that over the years our training and retraining have not been conspicuously successful. Of course, there has been some progress. But even so, time and again we have seen economic growth choked off by skill shortages in key sectors of the economy. The cases are legion where a firm's inability to recruit skilled staff has led to a loss of an order. In turn, this has led to fewer jobs for the semiskilled and the unskilled.
  I do not believe, therefore, that there is any serious disagreement in the House that our training system needs to be made more effective. The differences emerge on the best means to achieve that end. This immediately leads to questions about appropriate levels of spending and suitable types of structure.
  This brings me to the two central arguments which I am sure will feature strongly in today's debate and over the coming months. The first is the argument about the level of spending. There can be no doubt that over the past 10 or 15 years vast sums of money have been spent on training, both by Government and by industry. The overall

  617
  amount is probably incalculable. Yet, as I said earlier, none of us is satisfied with the result. Therefore, the key issue on which the debate should focus is how we can make sure that the large sums that we will continue to spend can be made much more effective. We could all think of dozens of ways to spend more money on training—on one scheme or another. But at the end of the day what counts is how effective the spending has been. It is this consideration—of getting a much better return on the money spent—which will be the underlying principle of the Government's approach.
  The same thinking should guide our approach on the structures which we need to develop. As with the debate on spending, it is all too easy for the argument to polarise; some will say that we need to scrap every existing institution, others that if the present structures are inadequate we must need more and more of them. But the key issue here on which I believe the debate should focus is what reforms should be introduced so that we can see that we are meeting the objectives which the institutions, or structures, were presumably meant to achieve. The outcome of the current review of industrial training boards will put us in the right position to make these judgments. The Bill will enable us to act on those decisions and help to secure a more effective training structure.
  I want to emphasise one other key principle which I believe should guide our thinking and shape our discussions. It is one which none of us can dodge, and which we should face up to fairly and squarely, namely, the impact of the sheer pace of change. The economic and social history of the past 30 years has been one of rapid change. Britain's story during that period has been one of failing to keep up. We have been slow, inflexible and unresponsive. Sadly, our training system has been no exception. Indeed, its failure to adapt quickly enough lies at the root of its ineffectiveness.
  But far from slowing down, change is crowding in on us faster than ever before. We have entered a new industrial revolution—the microtechnology revolution, or the telematics revolution, whatever one prefers to call it. That economic revolution is unique. As Daniel Bell pointed out in his introduction to the Nora report on telematics and the computerisation of society which was commissioned by President Giscard d'Estaing:
  "We can self-consciously witness a large-scale social transformation."
  Whereas very few people realised the import of the Industrial Revolution when it was taking place, there is now a much greater awareness of the significance of the changes taking place around us.
  With that awareness, it would be a terrible folly if we continued to be unresponsive to change and remained inflexible and hide bound by traditional thinking. Training and retraining are areas where it is absolutely vital to introduce a much greater sense of flexibility and responsiveness. There will be new demands, new pressures and new opportunities. Our duty, therefore, must be to devise a system which can adapt and respond to them, and which can thus enable us not only to keep up with the pace of change, but also to make the most of the opportunities which lie ahead.
  That is why it is vital today that we view the Bill in its proper perspective. It is one element in the Government's overall policy on training. It is not the central element, nor
  618
  the predominant one. It should be viewed as one essential part in a package of measures designed to establish an effective and systematic approach.
  The Government's key objective is to change industrial training so that it better meets the needs of industry, first, by providing a solid foundation training for all, and, secondly, by reducing restrictions on the provision and use of trained workers, both young people and adults. We intend to publish our proposals for a new training initiative shortly. We hope to be able to do so in conjunction with the MSC.
  I want briefly to outline the key components which will shape our new training initiative. First, there is considerable scope for improving the vocational preparation of young people. The vast bulk of young people who go into work at 16 or 17 years of age receive little or no training in even the most basic skills. We lag far behind other countries such as West Germany or France in that regard. As I have already made clear to the House on previous occasions, the Government are committed, as resources permit, to work towards the point where every school leaver will undertake a programme of vocational preparation. We are expanding the current pilot scheme, and in time we should look to the development of the youth opportunities programme in that direction.
  There has also only been slow progress in modernising current arrangements for training for skill within industry. Their effectiveness varies considerably, but in some traditional craft apprenticeships there is a need to remove age restrictions and to place much greater weight on the attainment of recognised standards of performance. Tests of trainee performance after particular phases of training are already applied in certain schemes, but we need to build on such developments and make them more general. Jobs entailing the exercise of skill and responsibility should, as far as possible, be open to all who can do them, and not be artificially restricted. Ernest Bevin, whose centenary of birth we celebrate next month, once said that Britain was a remarkable country because it was possible for him, a docker, to become Foreign Secretary. Yet if he had wished to change his occupation from a docker to a skilled engineer, he would not have been able to do so after the age of 19.1 think that the House will agree, despite the difficulties, that there is a need for a change of this nature.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: Does the Secretary of State envisage introducing legislation to remove the age restriction in an area which, until now, has been left to voluntary agreement between employers and trade unions?
  Mr. Prior: No, I do not envisage legislation. It must be done carefully. The maximum co-operation is required. I hope that my remarks in that regard will receive a fair wind from the House, which could have an important bearing on the attitudes of both employers and unions.
  However, training for skill needs to be seen in much broader terms than just craft apprenticeships. Systematic and flexible training needs to be developed for a wide range of other occupations at both higher and lower levels of skill, such as in the computer field, where at present the Manpower Services Commission is assisting a significant number of training places through the TOPS courses, which were referred to very favourably in The Observer yesterday. The number of people completing courses has

  619
  increased from slightly over 2,000 in 1978–79 to 3,196 last year, and more than 4,000 this year. That is one example of what I mean by getting our priorities right.
  Perhaps the most pressing issue of all is the need to improve provision for the training, retraining and upgrading of adults. The pace of change in the structure of employment and skills required by new technology means that many workers will need to be retrained, not only once but perhaps two or three times during their working lives. Only through the relatively rapid training and retraining of adults are we likely to be able to meet changes in the future demand for existing skills. The TOPS scheme is a great help, but resources are limited. The main need is for more systematic provision for such training within industry. Industrial training boards have had some success in opening up training in certain occupations to adults, but overall they have found it difficult to make much real progress.
  In the expansion of adult training I see an important role for utilising the new technological systems which are now becoming available. At my request, the MSC is currently examining the possibility of promoting "open" or "distance" learning for what might broadly be described as technical and supervisory levels. Any such "open tech" programme would be developed and implemented in close collaboration with existing educational and training resources. It would make the most of locally available facilities and experience. The aim would be to give people access to courses of study to training programmes which they could pursue without giving up full-time employment or the search for work if they were unemployed. That could be a very valuable way of using modern methods and approaches to help individuals to equip themselves with the skills they need.
  We shall make little progress towards achieving any of the objectives which I have mentioned without closer co-operation and understanding between those responsible for training and those responsible for vocational education. In certain industries and localities there is a record of successful co-ordination of education and training interests. But throughout the country as a whole there is still considerable room for improvement. We are urgently studying ways of improving links between training and education at the present time.
  I want to set today's debate in the context of the Government's general approach and our proposals for a new training initiative. I have set out the areas in which I believe we need to improve industrial training because these will largely determine our choice of the most appropriate institutional framework for the future. Industrial training boards have formed the basis of the industrial training system for half the economy for the last 16 years. I think that most people would agree that a review is probably overdue.
  It is not the Government's intention to pull everything up by the roots, just for the sake of doing so. As a farmer—as my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will know—I do not think that it is very good practice to pull everything up by the roots to see how it is growing and then put it buck again. But we now need a proper review. We shall wait until this review is over before we make up our minds.
  Mr. John Evans: I am rather puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has already told the House, as he told the House in November, that there is to
  620
  be a review by the MSC of the workings of industrial training boards. He has announced that he wants to set up a new framework for industrial training. Would it not have been better to have this debate before he promoted the Bill, which will give him extraordinary powers to abolish training boards. Would it not have been better to have the MSC review and then a debate on the findings of the MSC review before bringing legislation before the House?
  Mr. Prior: I do not think so—I thought that I had made that clear in my opening remarks—for the simple reason that, again, this would introduce a whole further series of delays in taking any action. It is bound to do so. Already a year has gone by during which we had the review of the Employment and Training Act. That has now led to the Bill and to what I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech. The review of individual training boards is now going on. If at the end of all that I have to wait for another Session of Parliament before taking any action, it would be a further year before any results could come out of that review.
  I do not believe, on an issue which I do not think is very controversial—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition, for their own purposes, may try to make it controversial. For one thing, they have put on a three-line Whip for this evening, which seems an extraordinary thing to do. But I do not believe that this matter need be controversial. I believe that we need to get on with it. One of the things that we cannot afford to have is a constant state of uncertainty in this sphere. [Interruption.] If the Opposition want simply to continue exactly the same system as we have now, they had better say so. I do not believe that that is the requirement for training in the 1980s. I want to make that clear. But nor do I believe that it would be in any way right to continue a period of uncertainty, which there is bound to be as a result of the review—any review will create a period of uncertainty—for any longer than is really necessary.
  Therefore, I think that Opposition Members would be doing themselves a favour, and would be doing the training boards and training a favour, if they accepted that this review ought to be carried out and that we ought to have the legislation available to the Secretary of State so that he can act as a result of the review as soon as it is completed.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Many Conservative Members understand the need for urgency. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the MSC will not jump the gun on this matter? There is a rumour that it is already planning an increase of over 800 in its staff. Many of us feel that it would be wrong to replace industrial training board advisers with a new monitoring bureaucracy in the MSC.
  Mr. Prior: I can give that assurance, because that is not what the MSC is telling me. Under difficult circumstances, I am making very considerable cuts in the MSC. Over four years—and I am perfectly proud and happy to say so—I am making a cut of over 20 per cent. in the numbers employed in the MSC, with the exception that because of the increase that] announced in the employment measures before Christmas there will be an additional 900 people, approximately, employed for the YOP and the community enterprise programme. But, generally, the MSC is having to accept a cut. I think that I am right in saying that it is 21·4 per cent. of its total

  621
  manpower. I am determined that we should spend the money on training and not on bureaucracy. That is why I want to get on with this as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prior: I have really stirred things up now. I wanted to keep it quiet. I do not want all this bother.
  Mr. Leighton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he explain what will happen to the £50 million Exchequer support that he is removing? Will this mean that less is to be spent on training?
  Mr. Prior: No, not necessarily. It means that if all the training boards were kept and if all the operating costs were transferred at one time to the industry, most of the £50 million which is at present being provided by the Government would then be paid for by the industry. When I say "most", that would be if all the training boards were kept. I say "most" because I believe that in those circumstances the training boards would find that their operating costs came down very considerably. There is no doubt at present that it is the increased supervision and accountability which requires training boards at all times to consult the MSC, which in turn must consult the Department of Employment, which in turn must consult the Civil Service Department. It does not end. All this is adding to the operating costs very considerably. Therefore, it would not involve all of that £50 million. There would be a saving even if we kept the statutory requirement for all training boards.
  It is far too early as yet, before the review has even taken place, for anyone to know how much of the operating costs will be transferred, and when they will be transferred, from the Government to the industries concerned, and whether or not there are other arrangements that we can make for boards instead of having statutory boards.
  Mr. David Ennals: Before we leave the question of financing, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the timing of the Bill is not entirely in order to save money now? Is not the argument that he has used, that he wants to complete his review, and so on, simply a cover-up for a cuts exercise? What view does he take of the CBI's opinion that it should be for the Government to give assistance rather than imposing another burden on industry?
  Mr. Prior: I have already tried to deal with the latter point. The CBI is certainly not saying that it should be for the Government to give assistance. Very largely, the CBI's view is that only a number of statutory boards need remain and, therefore, that the operating costs of boards would not fall on anyone because the boards would be done away with. As for the right hon. Gentleman's other point, if there are financial savings to be made and if this review is long overdue, what is the point of waiting? Why do we have to spend money that we do not need to spend? Let us get on with it and save as much of it as we can as quickly as we can. What we on the Conservative Benches are concerned about is getting the training done, not necessarily spending the money.
  Mr. Richard Needham: I accept the need for this review. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be extremely difficult for many employers, when confronted by this review by the MSC and feeling that they may have the cost transferred on to them and away from the Treasury, perhaps to give quite as objective a view of ITBs as they might otherwise do? Will he confirm that that factor will be taken into account when it comes to determining the results of the review?
  Mr. Prior: I generally consult my hon. Friend before making my speeches, but on this occasion, if he will have patience for a minute or two, I shall come to that problem in what I have to say, so I now return to my speech.
  Any assessment of the value of industrial training boards must be based on the recognition that, ultimately, responsibility for training rests with individual employers. They must gauge their future needs for particular types of skill. They must decide how to meet those needs, and what part training should play. Industrial training boards were established primarily to influence the quality and quantity of training which employers provide. In carrying out this task they can use levy exemption and payment of board grants as incentives to encourage employers to follow their recommendations but in the end everything depends on their skills of persuasion.
  Over the 16 years since the first boards were established the system has grown to a point where there are now 24 separate boards, each with its own staff and most with levy, levy exemption and grant schemes. In a recent survey, a sample of firms with industrial training boards were asked whether they would have done as much training without their boards. Over two-thirds of them agreed that they would have done. Reseach into the impact of levy exemption schemes which included inquiries to boards themselves suggested that levy exemption had helped to improve the quality of employers' training but produced little evidence that it had increased the quantity of training.
  These findings are, of course, only part of the whole picture. The research to which I have just referred also indicated that firms in boards were more likely to have planned training for all grades of staff, and to have increased their training in the last five years, than firms not in boards.
  Clearly—as one would expect—many boards have had a significant impact on employers' awareness of their training needs. Nevertheless, this evidence is consistent with the conclusion that several of these boards may now have outlived their usefulness. This conclusion is reinforced by the judgment of the MSC review body in "Outlook on Training" that, on the whole, boards have not been effective in meeting the special needs of small firms, or of cross-sector skill shortages or the skill shortages which are confined to local labour markets. These are areas where Britain's performance has remained weak. The main thrust of the employers' comment—and this is where I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham)—during the period of consultation on the MSC review body's recommendations was against the continuation of statutory boards. I shall read to the House a passage from the comments of one employers' association which illustrates the arguments used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which association?"]

  623
  I am not saying which association because I shall quote one association and members of the same association who have a different view.
  The employers' association said:
  "The Association recommends that the training boards, (having achieved their primary objective, and having consolidated it over recent years), should be phased out. No further improvement in training will be achieved by their continuation. Nor does the Association believe that the quality or quantity of company training would decline were the boards to disappear … The phasing out of training boards on the grounds that they have met their fundamental objectives, and no longer have an existence that can be justified, would not only release resources within companies which are being diverted from the main priority of imparting skills, knowledge, enthusiasm and commitment. It would also allow board staff to be redeployed out of negative bureaucratic activity into jobs where they could make a positive and immediate contribution to improving national resources either directly within industry or within other Government agencies seeking to improve the relevant capabilities of the population".
  That was the view against the continuation of training boards. By contrast, some employers wrote strongly supporting their board and pleading for its continuation. I quote:
  "I speak from enlightened self-interest and would consider it a grave mistake if the board to which my company is in scope were to be totally dismantled. We have received from them considerable assistance towards a high professional standard here."
  Against this background of conflicting views, it will be difficult to decide what changes should be made to the current system. Nevertheless, I am sure that it is right that we should now examine carefully how far we can move away from past preoccupations with structures and towards a greater scope for voluntary training arrangements. I believe that many firms which now recognise the value of planned training will continue to have adequate training programmes even if the incentives of levy exemption and board grants have been removed. Equally, I concede that this may not hold good universally, and in some sectors it may be necessary to retain statutory boards.
  The important thing is to reach the right solution for each sector and not to try to devise one formula for the whole of industry. The MSC review body was rightly concerned to make a general review of the industrial training system. But it did not investigate in detail the future training needs of each sector. I therefore strongly supported the review body's recommendation that there should now be a separate review, in full consultation with industry, of the future training arrangements for each sector, including those sectors which already rely on voluntary training arrangements. It is, of course, on the basis of this review that the Government will take decisions on the future of industrial training boards this summer.
  At a time of grave unemployment but with the promise of the upturn to come, it is appropriate for us to look at the manner in which we shall provide the skills of tomorrow. The Bill has limited objectives, but it should be seen as part of a much greater training initiative. In that light, I commend it to the House.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Harold Walker: One of the advantages and compensations of being in opposition is that one has the chance to watch television on a Saturday night instead of toiling over red dispatch boxes. Recently I have learnt what is meant by a "snow job", as depicted in television serials. That is what we have had this
  624
  afternoon. The Secretary of State made a deliberate attempt to play down a highly controversial issue. If it is so innocuous and uncontroversial, why have hon. Members been deluged with representations? Why has such concern been expressed?
  It would have helped the House, our debate would have been enhanced, and hon. Members would have been better placed to make a judgment, if we had been able to share the information contained in the MSC's corporate plan. The plan has been prepared. I understand that it has been with the Secretary of State for some weeks. I tried hard to obtain a copy. I understand that as a result of my representations last week a single copy has been placed in the Library, and that the commission was waiting for the Secretary of State's views before it released the plan.
  Last year the Select Committee on Employment recommended that the plan be published and made available to Parliament before it was approved by the Secretary of State. The commission said that it accepted that recommendation. Why is that plan not available to all hon. Members?
  Mr. Prior: The Select Committee said last year that it should examine the plan before it was approved by me. It did so this year. It made certain recommendations, which I received the week before last, on a Friday. It is right that I should take into account the recommendations before I write to the commission saying whether I approve it.
  Mr. Walker: I do not challenge that. That is not the point. What the Select Committee said is on record. It said that the report should be published and made available to Parliament before the Secretary of State approved it. The commission accepted that recommendation without qualification. The report has not been made available to hon. Members, although it is of crucial importance to our understanding of the Bill. It is also important because the Secretary of State has had access to information that has been denied to hon. Members.
  The commission is the authoritative voice of both sides-of industry and of local authorities as regards national manpower policy. Indeed, until now, it had been assumed that it was also responsible for the generation and implementation of that policy. That assumption is in the process of being demolished, no doubt to the delight of some Conservative Members. It is important that the plan should be made available to hon. Members, at least—should the Bill be given a Second Reading—before any discussion in Committee. The summary has been published in the Employment Gazette. As a result, we know that the commission and the Government are in clear and open conflict. That is what clause 1 is all about.
  If there were no conflict, clause 1 would be superfluous and redundant. The Secretary of State mentioned the MSC review body's report entitled "Outlook on Training". I invite the House to look at the document. It is available in the Vote Office and was published by the commission in July 1980. The Secretary of State repeatedly referred to the review that he has asked the commisssion to undertake. The House should be aware that a review has already been carried out. Early in 1979 the commission, under its chairman, Sir Richard O'Brien, set up a powerful body to review the workings of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
  One hesitates to accuse a Minister of deliberately misleading Parliament, but the right hon. Gentleman did

  625
  not—by a long way—fairly reflect the views of the review body that are set out in the report. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it came down heavily in favour of the present industrial training board structure. It said:
  "The existing basic statutory framework for influencing training within industry has a number of important strengths which are relevant to all of our priority objectives for training in the 1980s …. The right approach for the future is to build upon them and not to cast them aside."
  I invite the House to obtain a copy of the document from the Vote Office. In paragragh 8, it argues in detail in favour of statutory industrial training boards. In paragraph 8.7, the report concluded:
  "Radical changes in the existing structure would cause massive disruption. … Alternative structures would have to have clear advantages indeed to justify risking a major hiatus in training effort in a decade in which training will be of great importance. We have not been convinced of the reality of those advantages; nor, it is clear, have the great majority of those who submitted evidence to us."
  In the light of such strong and unequivocal views, the statement made this afternoon, and that which the right hon. Gentleman made on 26 November 1980, seem incredible. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have disregarded everything that the review body said. Four months after the publication of its report, the Secretary of State declared his aim. That aim is on record, and was repeated by the Earl of Gowrie in the other place on 10 December. He wished to ensure that there was no misunderstanding and to indicate that the words had been carefully thought out. The Secretary of State said:
  "The Government's aim will be to extend the area of reliance on voluntary arrangements as far as possible, and to keep statutory industrial training boards in a few key sectors". —[Official Report, 26 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 688.]
  The right hon. Gentleman did not repeat those words today. He wanted to obfuscate them, it seemed. In other words, this Bill seeks to make radical changes of the kind that the commission's report said would cause "massive disruption." The Bill is to be the instrument of those radical changes. I fear that it will have the consequences that the report forecast. During the past few weeks, when every hon. Member has been receiving representations from those professionally involved in training and from those who might be affected, word has come to me again and again to the effect that the Government intend to retain only four of the existing 24 boards.
  Whatever the figure may be, the Government have not adduced any arguments or evidence to justify the wholesale abolition of statutory industrial training boards. Nor has the Secretary of State—either today or on any other occasion—given any evaluation of the effect of doing so on the quantity and quality of training. There is no evidence to show that such a drastic and dramatic change of policy has been preceded by consultations with the MSC, with the boards, with the TUC, the CBI, or anyone else. There has been no attempt to encourage public discussion.
  Until this afternoon we had had only the bold statement that was made on 26 November, and which was echoed in the other place on 10 December. So far, we have had no indication of which might be the "few key sectors" for which statutory boards might be retained. In addition, no light has been cast on the nature of those wider training objectives that the Secretary of State says, might justify the retention of those boards.
  626
  What a slap in the face for those industries that are not on the chosen list. Perhaps for the first time, they will shortly learn that the Government do not regard them as key sectors. Are civil aviation, steel, potteries, the glass industry, wool textiles, cotton textiles, and the man-made fibre industry, to be told that they are not key sectors? Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister will tell us. In Committee, we shall continue to press until the Government give some indication of what those key sectors are.
  The Secretary of State says that the question of which boards are to survive will depend on the outcome of the review that he has asked the MSC to carry out. As I pointed out, and as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we have already had a MSC review, namely, "Outlook on Training". It demolishes the whole purpose of clause 1. One of the explicit purposes of clause 1 is to enable the Secretary of State to override and disregard the views of the MSC.
  Mr. Needham: The right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to ask us to read "Outlook on Training". I am sure that he will accept that in paragraphs 9.7 and 9.8 the commission comes up with matters of major concern about the relationship between the MSC and the training boards, and the methods of funding. Those paragraphs show that the existing relationship needs to be altered. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he cannot say that everything in the garden is fine and rosy and that there are no fundamental criticisms in "Outlook on Training".
  Mr. Walker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that I have said anything that would suggest that everything in the garden is rosy and lovely and that a case cannot be made for a touch on the tiller, and an adjustment here or a variation of scope there. I readily acknowledge that such adjustments have gone on since the 1964 Act came into being. The Secretary of State already has powers to vary the scope of a board or to terminate its existence. However, the Government should have regard to the recommendations of a body that was established by the Conservative Party in 1973. The MSC was established as the authoritative voice.
  The Secretary of State seeks powers to disregard, overrule and override that commission. The powers already exist but are subject to proper constraints. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has pre-empted any such review by saying in advance that he will, as far as possible, get rid of the boards. He will not wait for the outcome of the review. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is to be reliance on voluntary arrangements.
  Lord Scanlon, chairman of the engineering industry training board—who has a lifetime's experience in such matters—said:
  "The main drawback of voluntarism is that inevitably there are too few volunteers. History has proved that voluntarism does not work, and moreover, it has worked nowhere in Western Europe."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 1980; Vol. 415 c. 730.]
  Lord Scanlon is right. History and evidence are overwhelmingly on his side. If the voluntary system had worked, there would never have been any need for the 1964 Act. His view has had many echoes in the great volume of representations that we have received in the past few weeks.
  For example, the Road Transport Industry Training Board—one of the biggest training boards—says:

  627
  "Following the end of the second world war, a number of voluntary systems were tried and it was the total failure of these, embodied in the creation of the Industrial Training Council, itself the logical outcome of the hopes for the voluntary principle over the previous 15 years, which led inexorably to the move towards public involvement represented by the Conservative Government's Industrial Training Act 1964.
  Most other Western industrialised countries are pursuing greater, rather than lesser, public involvement in industrial training and both current evidence and historical experience suggest that without industrial training boards, many company training departments and training officers in this country would disappear."
  That is not an isolated view. It is apparently shared by all the boards. The House should be told—it would have been much better if the House had been told by the Secretary of State rather than by me—that on 21 January the chairmen of 23 out of the 24 boards signed a letter to the Secretary of State in which they said:
  "A substantial majority of Chairmen expressed surprise and disappointment"—
  Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows the content of the letter, but perhaps he will be sufficiently polite to allow me to tell hon. Members what is in the letter because they will be interested.
  The chairmen, in their letter, said:
  "A substantial majority of Chairmen expressed surprise and disappointment that the key recommendations of the Review Body… will not be fully implemented and that some or even most of the industries concerned will have to rely on voluntarism with regard to their future training needs.
  With one exception, it is the unanimous conviction of ITB Chairmen that this will be a retrogade step and place their industries in the unfortunate positions they were prior to the 1964 Act. Whilst many reputable firms will continue training, many others will make no such effort and resort to the previous practice of 'poaching' their trained requirements from the more responsible firms. We strongly urge you to reconsider your proposal for voluntarism.".
  If the right hon. Gentleman were being fair and straightforward with the House, he would have told us that this afternoon instead of leaving it to me. This is not the pleading of well-paid executives anxious to preserve their security. It is the collective view of men with an enormous wealth of industrial experience, many of them former employers, company directors or senior executives from both sides of industry, all of whom give time to their boards out of all proportion to any remuneration that they might receive, all of them doing difficult and demanding jobs primarily because they are concerned about industry's training and manpower needs.
  I understand that the one exception, the odd chairman out of the 24, who did not sign, declined to do so only because the letter was not sufficiently strongly worded.
  The Secretary of State seems completely unmoved by the fears of people who know something about training, are directly involved and have experience. They are not farmers, barristers and solicitors; they are men who have worked in industry throughout their working lives. Yet the Secretary of State treats their views with the same contempt as he apparently has for the views of the Manpower Services Commission.
  To whom does the Secretary of State listen? Whose advice is he prepared to accept? Or does he think that he knows best? This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman talked about uncertainty. Who caused this uncertainty throughout industry? Who caused uncertainty in the minds of all those concerned with training, whose jobs are in jeopardy and who do not know what the future holds until
  628
  the Secretary of State has decided where his axe will fall? How dare the right hon. Gentleman talk about uncertainty in these matters?
  During the past 20 years or so, the wide range of matters for which the Secretary of State has responsibility has generated much legislation—some of it as controversial as any that has ever come before the House. Yet, from time to time his Department has put before us a measure which has commanded support from both sides of the House and has been welcomed by both sides of industry and commerce as necessary and long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) reminded us that never was that more true than with the Industrial Training Act 1964. Probably few Acts had a longer gestation since, during the preceding post-war period, every voluntary alternative was tried and found wanting.
  I shall not weary the House with any account of those repeated but totally abortive attempts to solve our manpower problems by reliance on marget forces. For those who are interested, they are well described in detail by Dr. P. J. C. Perry in his work "The Evolution of British Manpower Policy." But the mood that led to the 1964 Act was well summed up in the White Paper that preceded it. Under the heading "The Case for Action", it said:
  "A serious weakness in our present arrangements is that the amount and quality of training are left to the unco-ordinated decisions of a large number of individual firms. These may lack the necessary economic incentive to invest in training people who, once trained, may leave them for other jobs. While the benefits of training are shared by all, the cost is borne only by those firms which decide to undertake training for themselves."
  The Conservative Minister responsible for that White Paper, whom I have quoted in the House in other respects and for whose wisdom the House should have regard, was John Hare, now Lord Blakenham. In the month preceding the Second Reading of the 1964 Bill, as it was, he said:
  "We must all realise the extent to which sound economic growth depends upon the use of our most valuable natural assets—manpower. Yet the truth is that far too many employers give little thought to the question of developing the potential of those they employ. Many provide no training at all; many provide training only of a most perfunctory kind; and many forget the important part which further education can—and should—play in the training of young people … We can only guess how much the country as a whole has suffered because men and women at all levels in industry and commerce are not properly trained."
  The then right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  ."few industries have developed any means of ensuring that they get the number of trained people that they need; there is no way of ensuring that all employers play their part; there has been little control of the quality of training; and there have been few attempts to examine in a criticial but constructive way methods and customs of training which have been in operation for several generations."
  Those words are a thumbnail sketch of the scene that made the 1964 Act necessary—a scene that the Secretary of State seems determined to recreate. They are a description of the voluntarism which we turned our backs on 16 years ago and which has been increasingly rejected by most other Western European countries in recent years but which the Secretary of State and his colleagues apparently now espouse. They want to revert to what Lord Scanlon in the House of Lords called "a chaotic state of affairs" such as existed before 1964.
  I readily concede that some of the high hopes and ambitions of 1964—some of them perhaps unrealistically high—remain unfulfilled; but there is no doubt whatsoever that the Act has had a wholly beneficial influence. It has created and produced widespread improvements in

  629
  training, it has created better standards and it has led to the development of a professional training expertise throughout industry.
  It was Lord Carr who, when Secretary of State for Employment, speaking about the ITBs, said:
  "The boards have great achievements to their credit in changing the attitudes of industry to training".—[Official Report, 1 February 1972; Vol. 830, c. 250.]
  Not the least of the benefits is that boards, by bringing both sides of industry into a forum where there is a feeling of community of interest rather than of conflict, make a positive contribution to improved industrial relations.
  I suspect that if there is a weakness in the present arrangements, perhaps the fault lies not so much with the Act as with the way in which we have applied it over the years.
  The essential principle of the 1964 Act was that of stick and carrot. The levy was the stick, and those who failed to carry out their training obligations were penalised by forfeiture of their levy payment. The carrot was the grant that was to be paid to those employers who did their duty and trained. Perhaps the carrot should have been slightly larger and perhaps the stick should have been applied rather more firmly. Unfortunately, any chance of doing that was frustrated by the 1973 Act, which led us in the opposite direction and diluted the spirit of the 1964 Act with its ceiling on levy, its exemption provisions and the wider exemptions that it provided for small businesses.
  In so far as it will be relevant after the right hon. Gentleman has finished butchering the boards, clause 2 represents a further weakening of the role of the ITBs. The Department of Employment press notice that covers the Bill suggests that clause 2 is
  "to enable an industrial training board to finance its operating expenses by a levy on employers".
  It is a statement that is coy in the extreme about the fact that the Government are retaining the 1 per cent. ceiling on levy. That is not mentioned in the press release. The upper limit that was introduced by the 1973 Act, to the dismay of the boards that had previously required a higher levy to fulfil their wider purposes, was offset by the Government's undertaking to pay the boards' operating costs. However, the Government are now clawing back the cash that was allocated to meet the boards' administrative costs—the £50 million has been referred to—and they have reneged on their commitment. Furthermore, the Government will deny, at least to some of the boards, the authority to recoup those losses.
  I refer to the Engineering Industry Training Board as an example. I have not discussed the issue with it, and I do not know what its position will be. Presumably, it will be a prime candidate for survival when the right hon. Gentleman wields his axe. If it is not, I do not know which of the boards will come into that category.
  Prior to the 1973 Act the EITB had a levy in excess of 1 per cent. When the Bill was before the House its levy was 2 per cent., and I believe that it had been historically higher. On the assumption that the board's activities have remained constant and that a levy of 2 per cent. would still be relevant, to peg the levy to 1 per cent. would be to cut the board's activities by a half. That will be the position unless the right hon. Gentleman has already assured the board's chairman, Lord Scanlon, of his willingness to bring a 2 per cent. levy order before the House. If he is not prepared to do so, the Bill will have a crippling effect
  630
  on the board and on all the training that it seeks to carry out. Doubtless, it will have an equally crippling effect on the other boards.
  Mr. John Evans: There is a deafening silence at the moment.
  Mr. Walker: Indeed. I have no objection to the Government cutting their obligation to fund the boards' operating costs. I thought that it was a foolish undertaking in the first place, and I have seen since the problems that it caused, not least those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred fleetingly—namely, the friction between the staffs of the boards and their employers. The logic of severing the link and withdrawing the funding of the cost of the boards is to restore to the boards their former freedom for levy orders. That logic was recognised by the MSC's review body, which recommended that the funding of operating costs should be returned to industry and that the boards should no longer have to obtain Government approval of the terms and conditions of employment of their staffs. However, it recommended that there should be no statutory limit on the size of the levy.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot pluck out of a package of proposals that hangs together those pieces that suit his purpose and reject the others. We opposed the introduction of the ceiling on levy in 1973. If we felt justified in doing so then, we shall be doubly justified in opposing its retention now.
  Despite having said that we shall not oppose the return to industry of the funding of the boards' operating costs, I must make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we are totally hostile to the idea that the Government should pocket the savings. I want to encourage the House to share that belief with me. The money should continue to be available to support the work of the boards but without the strings imposed by the 1973 Act. To do otherwise would be for the Government to impose yet another substantial cut in public support for training.
  The full extent of the cuts cannot be quantified in the absence of the MSC's corporate plan. However, they are sufficient for the chairman of the commission, Sir Richard O'Brien, publicly to express the fear that even the present level of support is insufficient to sustain apprentice intakes at an adequate level in future.
  However, we know from this month's Employment Gazette that Government spending on training is to suffer yet another cut of £77·5 million over the next five years. That will include a further cut of £35 million in the money allocated to the training opportunities programme. During the general election campaign the right hon. Gentleman pledged over and over again—it was almost interminable—his party's support for industrial training. He said repeatedly that it was the Conservative Party's approach
  "to retrain those whose skills are no longer needed."
  In 1977–78 nearly 100,000 completed TOP courses. The figures in the Employment Gazette published this month suggest that by 1984 the Secretary of State will have managed to cut that figure to about 55,000. He will have reduced the number retraining by about a half. How does he reconcile that with his party's commitment to retrain those whose skills are no longer needed? He has talked this afternoon about people having to retrain and retrain. He has spoken of not one skill, not two skills but three skills in one lifetime. However, at the same time he is busily depriving people of the opportunity to do so.

  631
  On 16 March 1979 the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "People must be trained in a spirit of optimism, secure in the knowledge that they are gaining the right skills and being educated to participation in the changes, not to be overwhelmed by them."
  That was good heady stuff in the atmosphere at the hustings. What has happened? At that time, the number of apprenticeships supported by Government funds was only 37,000. Within a year of taking office, he had managed to reduce it to less than 21,000. Last year total apprentice recruitment fell by about 10,000. It was reduced by about 10 per cent. of industry's recent annual apprentice intake.
  I use as an example the engineering industry and the firms within the scope of the EITB. The apprentice intake fell from 22,900 in 1979 to 20,700 in 1980. Other manufacturing industries all reported reduced intakes and some were substantial. The reduction in furnishing and timber was 50 per cent. It was cut by half in printing and publication. It was reduced by 25 per cent. in food, drink and tobacco. As the TUC observed in its economic review, at the same time the skill level of our workforce is being diluted as redundant workers take any job that they can get. It is hardly surprising that the MSC admits in its corporate plan to being "exceedingly uneasy" about the policies being imposed upon it by the Secretary of State. That was its view before the Bill was published.
  Of course training costs money. However, in the long run, it will cost us very much more if we have not trained. How can we inprove our productivity if we do not invest in the skills and techniques that are needed to match the challenges that are before us?
  The Bill is a part of the Government's continuing retreat from the manpower policies that are essential if we are to give hope and opportunity to our people, especially our young people, and win through against the challenges of international competition and advanced technology.
  The Government should accept the wise advice they have been offered by the MSC's review body. The right approach is not to cast aside the present arrangements, but to build on them. Instead the Secretary of State has chosen to reject that advice and to acquiesce to the demands of the Tory Party's Centre for Policy Studies. To whom is the Secretary of State listening? Where does he go to get his advice?
  The most categorical statement on the subject has been made by the Prime Minister's poodle at 32 Smith Square, the Tory Party's Centre for Policy Studies. That is the true origin of the Bill. The Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission are the hapless fall guys. In short, the Bill has been dropped on industry straight out of the bowels of the Conservative Party. I shall ask by right hon. and hon. Friends to pull the chain on it.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) gave the wrong address for the Centre for Policy Studies and he got the whole intention of the Bill equally wrong. He spoke about the uncertainty of the training boards, but the review that has been taking place for the past two years was set up by him. It is right that those who work in training boards should have their future settled as soon as possible. That is what my right hon. Friend is trying to do.
  My right hon. Friend spoke seriously about the importance of training. There is no disagreement in the
  632
  House about that. Equally we all share the frustration arising from the efforts made so far in this country to match our competitors in the search for improvements and matching training needs to industrial needs. I also share the feeling of Lord Scanlon who said in another place that we do not have unlimited time to get the matter right. He suggested, in his maiden speech, that we have 10 to 15 years to get our training linked to industrial performance if we are to achieve the sort of results that this country needs. The time has never been better or the need greater. That the need has never been greater has been reinforced in many areas because of the level of unemployment, particularly among the young.
  Lack of skill is one of the major factors to those young people who seek employment. Secondly, there have been changes within our industrial structure, and family men, who, having worked in one area and gained one skill, find, perhaps for the first time, that it is no longer required. As the recession ends we shall have demands from industry for a skilled work force.
  The time has never been better, because over the past two years there has been an enormous amount of research, and many reports, into this whole subject. They include the review of the Employment and Training Act report, the result of which we are debating, the Finniston Report, on which we have made progress, "A Better Start to Working Life", which has resulted in the Macfarlane report and farsighted suggestions for the potential for 16 to 19-year-olds and their education, the Government's decision to expand the unified vocational preparation in which industrial training boards have been closely involved, the TOPS and the achievement of TOPS and the review of skillcentres to put them on a more sensible regional basis. There is also my right hon. Friend's interest in distance learning and the open tech principle and their urgent development. But, perhaps more than anything, there is the development and growth of the youth opportunities programme in the past two years and the resources devoted to that.
  The aim of all that is accepted throughout the House. Everyone entering the labour market should receive realistic help on his occupation or vocation. We should develop all possible means of doing that. Secondly, during people's working lives the chance must be given—the ladder must be there—for them to increase their skills or change their knowledge at any stage and by whatever means. The range of methods of doing that needs developing.
  One essential key to those objectives must be developed. We need a widespread system of certification related to skills and standards rather than to occupation or time. Training boards have played, and will need to play in the future, a vital role in that.
  We should not judge the Bill as a negative quango hunt. The stakes are far too high. Nor should it be seen in isolation. Few people inside or outside the House, see it in the Machiavellian light in which the right hon. Member for Doncaster sees it.
  There is a danger that the review—particularly concerning the transfer of costs—is taking place at a most difficult time in industry. It is a time of falling profits, higher charges and the transfer scheme for sick pay. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that it is important that we should understand the position of industry over the transfer of costs. It would

  633
  be tragic if a proper review were jaundiced by that element and if it were thought that, if it costs anything, we do not want it.
  Of course it is right to transfer the administrative costs and to ensure that Government money is expended on the training element and expanding that with industry. There is no question but that the transfer of costs is essential. It is unfortunate that the position of training boards relative to their industries has declined since the Government took over the costs of administration. The boards have increasingly been seen as an arm of government and the Manpower Services Commission as an integral part of their own industries. I can support the view that the time and energy which has been spent by the Government, the Civil Service Department and the chairmen and staff of ITBs in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable over staff and salary costs and in trying to link them in to Government as extra-Government bodies has been a complete waste of time.
  There is no doubt that the costs of the boards should be returned to their industries. However, I have sympathy over the time scale. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's suggestion that he wants to achieve the change by a commencement order. It would be helpful for the purposes of the review if that could be clarified more and if my right hon. Friend could tell us that the commencement order would mean that the costs would be transferred over a period of one or two years, or three years as the TUC has suggested. If that element could be cleared away we should have a calmer atmosphere in which the review could achieve its work.
  A sectoral review will achieve much. There is great scope for change over the 24 boards. There is scope for amalgamation, federation and for some boards to go voluntary. There is also scope for extension of statutory responsibility, perhaps, in the areas of telematics and computers. It is essential to maintain a network of sectoral training but to free it from the narrow confines of the past. As a result of the review, it is important that the costs of training should continue to be fairly shared.
  When my hon. Friend replies, I hope that he will confirm to the House that the review will be seen with an open mind, that the pattern that emerges from the review has not been pre-decided and that it is not known by the House. We are anxious that it should be right. It is right that the Bill should be passed and that we should be prepared to take action. But there will be no great hurry after that. I hope that any proposed changes will be genuine, practical, long-sighted and on grounds that can be justified. One should remember that within the ITBs the staff have a great deal of industrial expertise in working with schools, in unified vocational preparation, in industry, careers and further education. If we can have an assurance that it is a genuine review and that there is no preset formula for the end of it, we shall await the outcome with interest.
  In parallel with the review, I should like my right hon. Friend to liaise with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Much good work has already been done between the Departments. It is essential that the Department of Employment should work with the Department of Education and Science to link the disparate strands of education, work preparation and training. Much good work has been done and I recommend to those who
  634
  read the reports that emanate from the hard work of various hon. Members the Macfarlane report on education for 16 to 19-year-olds. Paragraph 63, which covers the training agencies, provides a basis for working together with the Department of Education.
  I wish to make one other suggestion for consideration. The principal problem with training boards is that they have been sectoral and vertical while the labour market is increasingly regional and horizontal. Mobility in this country is a deep-seated problem, for a variety of reasons that we all understand, and it is likely to get worse. Natural labour markets are much more identifiable in small areas.
  Almost by accident, good things happen and, because of the pressure of unemployment among young people, the MSC has developed the special programmes division. As part of that, it has developed area boards which are flexible and which involve employers, trade unionists, educationists and local authorities.
  Originally, their purpose was social and they have been working to make sure that young people get some vocational training and, particularly, work experience as an alternative to unemployment. However, as the numbers have increased, the training element has increased and that should be continued. The CBI recognises that that is in its interests. It set up a committee to get additional places for work experience within the YOP.
  I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider amalgamating the training services division with the special programmes division to cover the whole area, involving, even before the end of the review, the industrial training boards that are most relevant to local areas. As I have seen in my travels throughout the country, the boards could be a great help to the YOP and the development of unified vocational preparation. They have great knowledge of modules, links with industry and assessments of young people.
  It was interesting for me to see in training workshops throughout the country the number of young people being trained under the YOP to use sewing machines. The knitwear training board has developed a system of assessing the aptitude of young people. Within half an hour it is possible to tell whether a young person is likely to get a job after training. Those schemes have not been put together and that is a simple example of the sort of help that industrial training boards could provide.
  That formula would help us to develop a non-bureaucratic and locally inspired and motivated total coverage of the training package. It would cover the young unemployed and the young employed and the training of adults in and out of work. It would use all the means at the disposal of a local area, whether group training schemes, colleges of further education, employers' premises, skillcentres or whatever.
  I am sure that local industrialists and trade unionists, who have already contributed a great deal to the area boards in relation to their social responsibilities, would see them in a different light if they were also responsible for training needs and bringing together schools, facilities and people in terms of employment as well as unemployment. It may be a radical suggestion, but I am sure that it would work within the 10-year time scale that we all believe is essential.
  I am what is known as a "One-Nation" Tory. On training we have many common objectives. We have a bridge and a common interest with the trade union movement, which gave evidence packed with common

  635
  sense to the review of the Employment and Training Act—RETA—and employers who have a vested interest in the proper utilisation of the skills of the nation in developing our future.
  I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under Secretaries who have been pitched into handling the Bill and who, I am sure, have the qualities necessary to deal with it, to see the bridge not as something which should, as Labour Members suggest, be made to smoulder and burn but as something which we can widen to provide real prospects for the future.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: The Secretary of State made an unconvincing case which was thin in content and conviction. The Conservatives are a party of many contradictions. They tell us that we must export more, but at the same time the Government are taking away some of the tools that would allow us to do the job.
  We may not be rich in raw materials, but we could be rich in expertise and high skills, and it is with those skills and high technology, rather than with our raw materials, that we will win the day. If we are to be successful, it is essential that we have the tools to do the job, and those tools include investment in the people who will carry out the necessary work to enable us to sell on foreign markets.
  Various countries in Europe assess the value of training in different ways. The Secretary of State made a brief reference to the Federal Republic of Germany. An EEC information sheet published in April 1980 said that Germany has probably the most comprehensive training system. It added:
  "Vocational training is concentrated on maintaining an adequate supply of places for people who wish to train for skilled occupations. Overall training picture bright. In 1978–79 the supply of training places was around 660,000. For the first time since 1974 training places were in surplus in 1979–80."
  That is an indication of the importance that one of our biggest competitors attaches to training.
  There have already been references to the fact that our work force must be prepared to retrain perhaps two or three times in a working lifetime. It is dangerous to leave that work to some form of voluntarism.
  I am especially concerned about some multinational companies which come here to invest money and use some of our skills. I am not optimistic that they are prepared to spend money on training. They will come and go as they wish, but we have greater responsibilities. Some multinational companies do not show as much loyalty to this nation as they do to international high finance.
  Before the training boards were introduced there was virtually no training in some industries. Training was almost unknown in the catering industry. The building industry, a most unstable industry, has consistently made poor provision for skills. As a consequence, at times a boom, firms poached from one another and the industry got into a terrible mess.
  In times of slump, there is virtually no training. It is only at times of great need that a shout goes up from industrialists and from Governments that something has to be done. By that time, of course, it is too late. Training should not simply begin when people are out of a job. It should be continuous. It should be concentrated directly in the areas where the nation knows it has specific needs.
  Another area of serious consideration is the partnership with education authorities. The authorities need to make
  636
  their provision in advance. They need to make staffing appointments. This cannot be done at the drop of a cap. The organisation of staffing within further education colleges is essential. The colleges need to know positively what will be the situation in order to make their training arrangements. The same consideration applies to ordering equipment. Those undertaking specialist courses of training need certain equipment. This must be ordered in advance.
  A meeting of principals of some of the further education colleges took place recently in Manchester. Some of the possible consequences of the Bill were discussed. I should like to refer to a letter sent to me only last week. The principals make the point that it would be wrong to leave everything to the initiative of individual firms. The letter states:
  "This is particularly so because many of the smaller ones lack the resources of staff and expertise to mount proper training schemes, while many of the very large companies are now run on a multi-national basis and really do not give priority to our own national needs. The result, therefore, is that many people find themselves working for firms who do not have the right priorities or attitude for training, which is why the levy grant system is a valuable way of ensuring proper training."
  Other points included doubts about the responsibility for initiating proper training schemes if ITBs are abolished. The principals make a strong plea that if the Government intend to withdraw their financial support for ITBs
  "they should recognise that the Further Education Colleges will need more and therefore the Rate Support Grant to authorities which are responsible for them must reflect that".
  The point the principals make is that it would be wrong to assume that all Government financial support can be withdrawn from the ITBs without the need to increase public spending on education. Those are some of the observations of professional people involved in education and training.
  Everyone can agree that we are in a serious state of industrial decline. The Bill will have a serious effect particularly on the inner areas of major cities where there is high unemployment. It is essential that we prepare and train our people for the jobs of the future. Money spent in this direction is not a financial drain. It is a positive investment. It is better than money in the bank.
  If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, it will be yet another nail in the coffin of British industry. In spite of the Secretary of State's remarks about new training initiatives, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has said anything new. I get the distinct feeling that this is something old. Indeed, it is very old. It is so old that it is beginning to smell.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: Until he came to his conclusion, I thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) had made a number of points in a sober and responsible manner about industrial training. The real contrast so far in this debate has been the well-informed, knowledgeable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who has made such a notable contribution to work in this field over the past 20 months, and the hysterical denunciation of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) who made no positive proposals and did little good to anyone except possibly to raise his own blood pressure. I wish to do my best to find some

  637
  common ground in industrial training, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston, to see whether we can find a sensible road forward.
  We are surely agreed that training is essential to our economic future and important to the individuals who benefit from it. We can also agree that it is a practice that is much under valued in this country by too many employers and too many people involved in industry. We have done too little compared with our international competitors. This has led to skill shortages and has contributed to our poor position in the league of industrial achievement. We can also agree that training is essentially a long-term investment. It will not produce results tomorrow. One is sowing the seed corn that will bring forward results some time in the future.
  It is worth mentioning a special problem that exists at the moment with a very high level of unemployment that is hitting disproportionately, as unemployment always does, the least skilled members of our work force. They find themselves increasingly without job opportunities. Yet we know that when the upturn in the economy comes—although increase in employment may be delayed beyond other indicators of economic upturn—we shall need new skills. Every time that the upturn has come before, we have run into bottlenecks and skill shortages. There is no reason why that should be different today. Indeed, with the rapid change in technology, it is likely to be worse this time than on previous occasions.
  We therefore need a great investment in training. That is one of the reasons why it is right that the review should be taking place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston said, the review was instigated under the previous Labour Government and is now hopefully to be carried to a swift conclusion by the MSC so that my right hon. Friend can consider what action he needs to take upon it.
  There are some pluses and minuses in the present situation. On the plus side, it is true that industrial training boards have built up considerable banks of knowledge about training over a wide area. They have good access to companies at a high level. That is important. They have improved the structure of training in a number of important areas. In the engineering industry, the modular training scheme is a notable example of the improvements that have been made.
  I should like to emphasise one other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston—the fact that the training structures are an important addition to our tripartite machinery. Anything that brings together the Government, industry and the trade unions to talk about specific problems, rather than, as so often, to exchange insults, is an important contribution to our economic life.
  On the minus side, there is no doubt that many of the boards have built up bureaucratic structures whose impact has been made worse by the need to refer too many decisions to the Manpower Services Commission, then to the Department of Employment and then to the Civil Service Department. We have heard of decisions taking 18 months to return to the originator. That must be wrong.
  Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. Does he lay the blame on the bureaucracy of the industrial training boards, of the Manpower Services Commission or of Whitehall?
  Mr. Scott: The blame probably does not lie exclusively with any of them. We have too complicated a system, and that fact alone justifies a review of the bureaucratic procedures and my right hon. Friend's proposal to streamline them.
  One of the greatest failings in industrial training—this is not exclusively due to the industrial training boards—is that we are still largely stuck with an outdated system of craft training. The Select Committee on Employment was given evidence of an uneven quality of work as between the different boards, and perhaps a degree of inflexibility about some of them.
  There was recently drawn to my attention the experience of the British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association. One would expect it to come under the Agricultural Training Board, but it comes under the Road Transport Industry Training Board, whose experience has nothing to do with the training necessary for those who work with agricultural and garden machinery and whose numbers are tiny compared with the total under the scope of that board. Their work is not compatible with that of the motor trade. They go out in all weathers, in appalling conditions, to work on farms, smallholdings and market gardens repairing machinery. They are not working in motor transport work shops or other workshops. That section of the industry has always run its own system of training its own employees. The board has manifestly failed to show any concern for its special needs.
  That is an example of the sort of group that could be taken out of a board's scope and allowed to make its own voluntary arrangements. Such a case—there are others—reinforces the need for the review. But I hope that when the Government conduct a review and make up their mind they will not lose the baby with the bathwater. There is a great danger in too widespread and too quick a spread of voluntarism. We do not know whether any voluntary arrangements would continue to have statutory standards applied to them. Some of the existing boards that continue will clearly go on having statutory obligations. Will the voluntary arrangements that might replace some of them also have to achieve those standards? If not, who is to monitor them to see that they achieve the necessary standards?
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that there is a danger and see that it is dealt with. I hope that he will also deal with the danger of a too rapid transfer to industry, particularly in the present economic climate, of the burden of the cost of industrial training.
  We know what our targets are. They are to reduce bureaucracy, improve standards, build upon the best experience that we have, ensure a training system that is flexible enough to cope with a rapidly changing future, and give the taxpayer and industry value for money. I am sure that there will be savings as a result of the review, but it must be clear to all that, with unemployment likely to face the country for a considerable time, they will not be absolute; the money will have to be spent elsewhere on manpower programmes, particularly to protect the weakest in our society from the present intolerable level of unemployment.
  My right hon. Friend outlined a number of aims that we should be concentrating on as we reform our system of industrial training. The first was vocational preparation for the young, where, as he rightly said, we are way behind the performance of our main competitors. In West

  639
  Germany about 90 per cent. of young people go on to some form of education or training when they finish full-time education. In France the figure is about 80 per cent. Here we are lucky if it is 10 per cent. We have a long way to go. The experience of the youth opportunities programme and of the unified vocational programme has shown what can be achieved when we set our minds to it. The vast majority of young people who have gone through those programmes have gone into full-time work at the end of them. If we are determined to list our targets, they can be hit.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the eventual target should be to see that every school leaver has an opportunity under one or other of the schemes. But since, if we are to go on working on the present basis we need the widespread and increased co-operation of employers, I question whether a widespread and quick return to voluntarism will necessarily meet the need for expansion in this area.
  My right hon. Friend also mentioned the question of apprenticeships, which is perhaps the greatest failure of our present system of industrial training. The late and much missed Mr. Reginald Maudling used to describe living in this country as being like living on a planet with an excessively high gravitational pull, because to change anything required a disproportionate effort. The experience of trying to change the system of apprenticeships is a good example of that phenomenon. Our present system is failing both the youngsters and our economic base. It is increasingly inappropriate to the newly developing and highly technological industries upon which so much of our future prosperity depends.
  We all now accept the premise that we need to train to standards rather than simply to train by the effluxion of time. But again I have to give my right hon. Friend a warning. Today's economic pressures on employers have led to cuts in apprenticeship training and in the training of youngsters generally. Therefore, any widespread dependence upon employers to increase training in this area will have to wait until the economic climate has altered.
  The third priority that my right hon. Friend outlined was adult training and retraining. The structural change that we are experiencing, and are likely to experience for a long time, will mean that less and less can the majority look forward to acquiring one skill that will last them throughout their adult life. People will have two or three careers. In training people for new careers, in training managers and technicians, we run a long way behind our major industrial competitors.
  Much of the work will have to be done within industry. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about new techniques, what are now called open learning techniques. I know that the technical term means the use of new techniques of micro technology, and so on, to make learning available to more and more people. But I hope that in their other sense the words "open learning" will mean that more and more people who perhaps feel themselves locked within a straitjacket of opportunity at present will be able to improve their life chances and provide themselves and their famlilies with more prosperity.
  I support the Bill. I know the commitment of my right hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I welcome to his new responsibilities. We need a better trained and more flexible work force, not just because our country should prosper as we all want, which
  640
  is important enough, but because the individual, if he is provided with more opportunities, will be able to realise his potential. That will lead to a more cohesive, more satisfied and more prosperous country. Like my hon. Friend, I shall watch the review with great care and great interest in the light of the future industrial training needs of the country.
  6.00 pm
  Mr. Cyril Smith: First, I express the hope that if, by tradition, Governments take little notice of points made by Opposition parties, they might at least take note of comments from their Back Benchers. I particularly hope that they will take notice of the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea, (Mr. Scott). If some Members believed that his views were the views of the Government Front Bench, some of us might be a little less apprehensive about the Bill.
  As I listened to the Minister, I wondered why he was presenting the Bill at all. He said that it was innocuous and kind, and that there was no need for worry. At one stage he indicated that he had stirred matters up, and he said that he had not wanted to do so.
  Many hon. Members are concerned, not so much about the proposals in the Bill but about its consequences. I am concerned about some parts of the Bill, particularly clause 4. We believe that the consequence will be one of two things, and possibly both. First, a number of industrial training boards will be abolished without anything necessarily to replace them. Secondly, the Bill will transfer from the Government to industry more of the expense for training than is now borne by industry. I suggest that on either count the Bill is ill-conceived and certainly ill-timed. We are in a position where industry is struggling to survive, and yet the Bill will clobber it yet again. It will have to find finance over and above that which it is expected to find at present.
  That is strange. The Government say that they believe in free enterprise, and at the last general election they made great promises to small companies. I recall the trips to Bournemouth and the speeches that the now Minister of State, Department of Industry, made to the Council of Small Firms. He said that everything would be all right for small businesses if the Conservatives were elected. But in practice, business has been clobbered and clobbered again by this Government. Local authorities have put up rates to astronomical heights as a result of Government policy. National insurance surcharges have been levied on companies, and they are now to be asked to pay sickness benefit for their employees. This Government, who are so keen on encouraging industry and small businesses, are now adding a further burden by transferring to them the cost of financing training programmes. That is a strange way for the Government to behave, and a strange time at which to embark on such proposals.
  Mr. Needham: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that small employers are exempt from the levy and, therefore, that the very small companies would not suffer?
  Mr. Smith: First, there is the argument about what is small, and, secondly, the matter is under review. We have no guarantee that small companies will continue to be exempt. If we are moving towards voluntary organisation rather than statutory organisation we shall have to rely on boards to exempt small industries. Small companies were

  641
  not exempt prior to 1973. On more than one occasion I signed cheques for levies, and I received them also. Small companies were not exempt prior to the change in circumstances, and there is no guarantee that they will be exempt in the future.
  I do not deny—indeed, I subscribe to the view—that some industrial training boards are grossly over-administered and that some have provided jobs for the boys in glorious fashion. Some have built up sizeable assets and resources and some have as members people who have not been close to industry, in a practical sense, for years. That demonstrates a need for review, and not a need for abolition, which many hon. Members believe will be the consequence of the Bill.
  Equally, many training boards have an excellent record. Before this Government came into office my constituency was largely a textile constituency. Therefore, no one will be surprised if I take that industry as an illustration of my point. The Cotton and Allied Textiles Board has, to my certain knowledge, been of great help to many companies, including many small companies. To destroy organisations such as that—it appears that textile boards are likely to get the chop—would be one more retrograde step and a public demonstration of the view that many people hold that the Government have written off the textile industry.
  I said that the Bill was ill-conceived and ill-timed. We are a nation in which the Labour Government put 1½ million people on the dole. A further 1 million have now been added by this Government. It is obvious that the Government are striving desperately to equal the record of the Labour Government and thereby ensure that by the end of the year there are about 3 million people on the dole. The net consequence of mass unemployment should indicate a necessity for more training and retraining, rather than less. Whatever one's view about the way in which unemployment has arisen, because it exists this should be a time for training and more training. What are the Government doing about that? I thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) was superb and extremely well-researched. He indicated where the Government had reduced the facilities and opportunities for training.
  In my constituency, where unemployment is now officially running at almost 14 per cent. but where we know that, unofficially, the figure is between 16 per cent. and 18 per cent.—and I am not including married women; I have in mind mills where closures have been announced but where redundancies have not yet taken place and are therefore not included in the figure—we have a Government skillcentre. But what have the Government done to encourage such companies as remain in Rochdale to send their employees to the skillcentre this year? They have increased by substantial amounts the fees that those companies have to pay to send people for retraining.
  I must be fair to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison). He has written to me in the past seven days saying that he is considering this matter and the representations that I have made to him. I hope very much that he will arrive at a conclusion that is favourable to my constituency, so I must say nothing likely to prejudice him in doing so.
  Skillcentres in areas of high unemployment should be encouraged to do more training. Companies that are going
  642
  through periods of deep recession and serious economic problems are not encouraged to send people to attend skillcentres if the fees are increased. That encouragement will come about either by cancelling the fees altogether or by retaining them at their present level.
  In terms of training and retraining, on top of all that we have a changing economy and a changing future. I refer to the microchip and all the other technological advances that are being made at present. I have said many times, and I make no apology for saying again, that sooner or later some Government will have to have the moral courage to say that we need to restructure the pattern of life as between employment, vacation and leisure. The time is coming when unemployment will have to cease being a party political football and we shall all have to accept that our labour force, if it works 40 hours a week for as many weeks a year as it does at present, until men are 65 and women are 60, is greater than our economic requirement as a nation.
  The consequences of saying that are many. I have in mind the gradual reduction of the retiring age for men and the restructuring of our training facilities and opportunities. I subscribe very strongly to the view expressed by the Secretary of State about the need to get away from the idea that a person becomes skilled only if he is under the age of 20. We ought to have standards capable of being achieved at any age; anyone who acquires them is a skilled man, because he has done exactly the same training as people between 16 and 20 are now doing. A change in the age of training and the opportunity to train and retrain later in life are two essentials. We also need shorter working weeks. These are all consequences of accepting that we have a labour force surplus to requirements.
  I hope that the day is not far off when some Government will have the courage to say "That is the position. Now let us sit down and work out the consequences of it." One of the consequences of it must be training and retraining. That is why at this stage it is idiotic to start proceeding along lines that will reduce the existing number of industrial training boards.
  I turn finally to the clause to which, in passing, I referred earlier. Clause 4 gives exemption to companies in enterprise zones. In my view, that clause in itself is sufficient to warrant voting against the Bill. It is a disgraceful provision, and I am staggered that any Government should have the impudence to include it in a Bill of this description. The clause is saying to people who employ apprentices, including my own company, "You do the training, and let companies in enterprise zones take them over and use them." That was the position before we had compulsory industrial training, and that position is being encouraged by clause 4 yet again.
  First, let us consider what is to go into the enterprise zones. I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members have no idea what is likely to be included in enterprise zones. Great supermarkets are qualified, as are architects' offices, engineers' offices, solicitors' offices and commercial organisations. All are qualified to go into enterprise zones.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Betting shops.
  Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend says, even betting shops will be permitted. All of them can go into enterprise zones and get the benefits of them. However, that is water under the bridge. The Government have decided that such

  643
  bodies may go in and, although many of us believe that that is not the spirit in which enterprise zones were envisaged, it has happened, and that is it.
  Under clause 4, however, all those organisations, be they shops, offices, manufacturing industries or anything else, will now be exempt from any levies for training and from any requirement even to provide statistics about the training that they are doing. In future we shall not be in a position to question or discover what is going on. We shall not be able to say that the law on this matter needs changing. All companies in enterprise zones are to be exempted under the clause.
  A company competes in the same market as a second company across the way, which is in an enterprise zone. The company across the road, because it is in the enterprise zone, will get tax and rate concessions, planning reliefs and Governmant grant. On top of all that, when, as a consequence of the Bill, some industries, including the one on this side of the street, have an additional levy put on them for training, the company across the road in the enterprise zone is required to pay no levy at all. The clause is a scandal, and it itself merits a vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  I believe that the Bill is ill-timed. I do not believe that it is innocuous, as the Secretary of State would have right hon. and hon. Members think. It is ill-conceived. I agree that there is a need to review the training boards, their function and their administration, and generally to see what can be done to streamline them so that they can prepare for the next decade. In the end, the country needs more training and retraining, and not less. If this Bill is given a Second Reading, the consequence is likely to be less training and retraining, and not more. For all those reasons, my colleagues and I will vote against the Second Reading.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Taylor: It is a pleasure to follow the robust contributions of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who speaks from a depth of personal experience in industry. I share his reservation about clause 4, as I do not believe that it is right that those within enterprise zones should be released from the payment of levies that are paid by other companies. However, that does not merit our voting against the Bill tonight.
  I do not agree with other remarks made by the hon. Member, particularly his argument that all training boards should be sacrosanct and that none should be closed down. Nor do I believe that, as a result of the Bill, there is likely to be less training in the future.
  I have always believed that any party that has been in office continuously for 10 years or more must run out of ideas. It tends to grope around in order to find legislation to produce before the House. The Industrial Training Act 1964 was such an Act, coming at the end of 13 years of Tory Administration. It was meant to help industry, but it was ill-thought-out, and it placed an administrative and financial burden on industry, and particularly on small firms.
  When I first entered the House after the 1970 election, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) in starting a campaign to change the levy grant principle as it was then operated. We tabled prayers against the training levies and questions to the Minister,
  644
  and kept up a barrage of activity on the subject. As a result of that activity, we played a small part in the birth of the Employment and Training Act 1973. That Act was a typical example of compromise, which was the hallmark of successive Governments over the 1960s and 1970s.
  Because part of that Act retained the levy grant system, I concluded my speech on Second Reading on 13 March 1973 by expressing grave reservations. The Government of 1973 took a step backwards from the plan for discussion that was produced in 1972, when my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) was the Minister responsible at the Department. Page 55 of the discussion document said:
  "A policy by a firm of maximising its grant return can therefore lead to distortion of the training that it really needs to undertake."
  I accepted that part of the document. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Rochdale would dissent.
  I repeatedly tried to put that point of view in Committee on the 1973 measure, but I did not receive much support. However, as long ago as 1966–67 the Estimates Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hamling, the late Member for Woolwich, West, who was a respected educationist, came to a similar conclusion following evidence from a substantial company that it had changed its trading policy in order to maximise its grant but not in a manner in which the board had complete confidence. In 1966–67 the Estimates Committee forecast the abandonment of the levy grant system. The Bill takes us one step nearer, but it again falls short of the objective that I should like to see.
  That objective would be the handing over of the industrial training boards to the industries that they try to support, complete with the assets that they have built up and to which the hon. Member for Rochdale referred but without the statutory right to levy. They would, however, have the right to charge fees for the services that they provide.
  I do not know why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has moved in the direction that I should like to see. Perhaps it was because, about two months ago, the Daily Mail produced a substantial article showing that the director of the Road Transport Industry Training Board had an inflation-proof salary which was already over £28,000. If such cases do not encourage right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to the view that an overhaul of training boards is distinctly necessary I do not know what will.
  Whatever the reasons, opposition will be mounted against the Government's proposals. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) lifted up a pile of papers that he had received protesting about those proposals. It would be extraordinary if, after 16 years of the existence of the training boards, hon. Members were not bombarded by those who wanted to preserve the status quo. It would be extraordinary if after 16 years, arguments could not be put forward to justify the retention of the present situation. However, in the main those choruses come from those who are employed by or connected with the industrial training boards.
  The right hon Member for Doncaster implored my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take notice of those protests that had come from those who were "professionally concerned" with the existence of the training boards. He went on to implore the Secretary of

  645
  State to listen, not to those who are barristers, professional men or farmers but to those who speak for industry. I suggest that those who speak for industry do not support the continuation of the boards as they are now organised.
  One argument that is frequently put forward—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) mentioned it tonight—is that we must be ready for the upturn in the economy when it comes. Of course we must. The engineering industry is a case in point.
  In my constituency a firm called Waddon Engineering has just introduced a new motor cycle. It was launched with substantial press coverage, during January. That firm has an apprenticeship scheme. Therefore, it does its own training to a certain extent. However, because of the upturn in its business it cannot find skilled staff at this stage.
  After 16 years, when we are in a depression—as many people call it—is it not extraordinary that sufficient skilled men are not available? Does not that mean that there is something sadly wrong with the results of the training boards?
  Many training boards have made representations to us. Most hon. Members will have received a pamphlet from the Distributive Industry Training Board. I should declare an interest at this stage, because my firm's annual contribution to that training board is over £3,000. In its annual report it states that it looks after the interests of 750,000 people in the distributive industry. However, the document, entitled "What's the Future?", claims that there are 100,000 trained instructors in distribution, looking after a work force of 750,000.
  That is an odd claim for the board to make. It must be considered. What qualification is required for a person to be a trained instructor? How is that number reached? Do we want 100,000 trained instructors to look after 750,000, or has something gone drastically wrong with the training? As it is likely that the Distributive Industry Training Board will be abolished, it is worth recording that in the document the board states:
  "It is the Board's view that in an industry as diverse as distribution—which includes retailing, wholesaling, mail order, credit trading, builders' and plumbers' merchants—no single voluntary body could be established to ensure that the industry's training standards are maintained and developed."
  Do hon. Members think that a statutory body can be responsible for training for such a multitude of purposes? I do not, and I believe that that board is suitable for the axe.
  I have another reservation about the Bill besides the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale. It empowers the Secretary of State or any of his successors to establish boards without the approval of the House. That worries me. In Committee on the 1973 Act, the right hon. Member for Lewisham East (Mr. Moyle) made fun of that proposal, to such an extent that the then Minister assured him that there was no such intention.
  I am happy to vote for the Bill because it moves in the right direction. If my right hon. Friend uses it as I hope he will. I think that we are signing something of a blank cheque, which goes very much against my principles, but we shall look for some assurances before Third Reading.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: Until the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) ended his
  646
  speech, I thought that he was a most unhappy man. He did not like the 1964 Act, he was unhappy about the 1973 legislation and he had misgivings, with which I agree, about the enterprise zone exemptions in this Bill—yet all three were introduced by Conservative Governments.
  The Bill is designed to save the Exchequer £50 million. The irony is that the Budget forecast will be exceeded by about £500 million, because the average level of unemployment is considerably higher than last year's Treasury forecast. We should keep this matter in perspective. I doubt, moreover, whether the Treasury will be able to recoup the £50 million entirely, because, with the operation of corporation tax, the Treasury's net receipts may be considerably less. The training services side of the Manpower Services Commission activities will be at the sharpest end of the cuts. That was made clear recently to the Employment Select Committee when we interviewed the chairman of the MSC.
  The reasons for this Bill is that it was realised that a number of things needed to be corrected in the 1973 legislation. I hope that there will not be false economies, since I believe this Bill to be premature. Neither the TUC nor the CBI has been able adequately to consult its members. They do not know what their members feel about the Government's proposals.
  This is not a good time to make such fundamental changes in our system of industrial training, because the changes of attitude which are necessary will not be achieved from employers who face increasing costs, nor from employees when nearly 3 million people are out of work. One in 10 of the working population of Britain is out of work, and the ratio is one in six in areas such as Strathclyde, which includes my constituency.
  The return to voluntarism is fraught with dangers, as a number of hon. Members have said. If it had worked, we would not have required the original 1964 Act. Industrial training in companies has an important role to play. In their frequent exhortations for greater productivity, Ministers point to the need for better training in British industry, and there is a need to develop employee opportunities. All too often, training is seen as an overhead and not an asset to the running of a company.
  Reference has been made to skill shortages. They largely arise from the training weakness, both individually and collectively, of companies. The changes proposed in the Bill will not help to meet the needs which will arise with new technologies. I do not suggest that the present ITB system is perfect, but the whole thing might easily be swept away or eroded so that its effectiveness is severely crippled.
  Before the Secretary of State makes proposals for merging or abolishing particular ITBs, he should give the House his reasons. I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, but he made a valid point over his anxieties about the textile industry. If that is one of the boards which will be axed, there should be a debate in the House about the Secretary of State's reasons for thinking that it is dispensable.
  Voluntary bodies do not report to the House of Commons. Nor will the firms within that industry be compelled to join the voluntary training arrangements which might be decided. One of the weaknesses of the 1964 legislation, which was implemented by a Labour Government, is that, although we can easily sort out the shop floor, it is more difficult to sort out the priorities within the board room.

  647
  Personnel management and training—I have had some brief experience of both—do not rank high in most boardrooms. They are not always regarded as important operational functions. That should change. In their dealings with executive and non-executive directors of companies, Members of Parliament sometimes find that their performance leaves much to be desired.
  I agree that there is a need to correlate the duration of apprenticeships and the standards achieved. I speak from experience, because I served an apprenticeship in the printing industry. I took full advantage of the day release and evening class facilities. One should not overlook the contribution by ITBs recently to improving the standard of apprenticeships. Nor should we overlook the fact that one could easily reduce the training content for many professional qualifications. Before I came to the House I worked for the Scottish Business Education Council, which was involved with the educational qualifications of a variety of bodies, not all of which operate only in Scotland.
  The Government may want to help late developers who are denied their chance at 16, but with rising youth unemployment it is not the late developer but the non-starter who will benefit most from any change in that direction—in other words, the youngster who is denied permanent employment altogether in his or her teens. With longer-term unemployment among youngsters rising, we must take hold of the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), that there should be some forging of links between the special programmes division and the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission. He referred to himself as a "One Nation" Tory. I suspect that he paid the price for that outlook. In my dealings with him, I found that he had a personal commitment to improving training.
  Adult entry will have its price. I cannot imagine older men and women seeking to come into a craft area without expecting a higher rate of pay than that available to 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. Moreover, they may look for exemptions for certain aspects of training, despite the fact that in recent years the length of apprenticeships has been reduced, especially since the raising of the school leaving age in 1972. Adult entry may force the pace of State funding of the initial period of apprenticeships. Nobody gives a second thought—although the Government have their plans—to the funding of youngsters going to universities. The State is prepared to meet those costs. Adult entry will probably press the claim for greater State funding of the initial costs of training.
  Adults will, I think, invariably work for the company. I can foresee a position where adult entry is seen more as a means of escalating the skills of those already employed by the company, rather than the company taking on some unskilled or semi-skilled persons. The tendency will be to give unskilled or semi-skilled employees the opportunity to upgrade their skills.
  While the Government may wish to abolish industrial training boards, the very fact that they are moving in the direction of adult entry means that some form of apprenticeship board or authority will be required to oversee arrangements concerning recruitment, content, duration, and certification of craft apprenticeships.
  A major management development problem exists in British industry. There is a considerable challenge in trying to maximise the potential of employees. Most firms do not fully utilise the potential of those whom they
  648
  employ. That point was brought out vividly in the reports of the National Economic Development Council, produced some time ago, about skill shortages. The reports said that many of the craftsmen leaving engineering and other industries do so after redundancy because they see little or no long-term career prospects. In other words, there is a considerable wastage because people do not receive the satisfaction for which they are looking—and rightly so—in the jobs that they do. I hope that there will be some link forged between the "little" NEDC reports and the individual industry training boards. Too many of the sector working party reports that were painstakingly prepared hit the wastepaper basket rather quickly. There is a need to link up the tripartite input of many of the "little" NEDC working parties with the work of the industry training boards.
  I turn briefly to the 16 to 19 age group. I read the Macfarlane report. I do not wish to be partisan, but, as with many other reports that we read as Members of Parliament, I did not think that it said anything fresh or radical about where we should go. It certainly did not proffer any additional resources to enable us to get there. There is no doubt that a sizeable section of the working population never achieves the advantage of initial employment training. It might be argued by some companies that they do not require any initial employment training. There is a danger that we might re-invent the wheel. Far too often, our secondary schools are engaged in doing remedial work that should have been done in our primary schools. Our further education colleges become involved in repair work that should have been done in the secondary schools. I hope that that will be taken on board when we consider the problems of linking what is done in our educational system with what is required in our industrial system. For example, the "open tech" sounds very imaginative. We have an Open University, but its students are up in arms because of the increasing costs of studying at it. It is fashionable to talk about distance learning. I spent six years in educational administration, and I am well aware of the Carnaby Street fashions in that line.
  There are skillcentres. One of the problems that frequently comes before the Select Committees and other bodies is the reluctance of employers to recognise the output of the skillcentres, and a not unnatural diffidence by some trade unionists, in times of high unemployment, to accept the output of those from skillcentres.
  Dr. Hampson: When Lord Crowther-Hunt put forward a similar idea to the "open tech", he received less support from the then Labour Government than this idea is receiving from this Government. We have accepted the principle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has done a great deal more than the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. Craigen: I am not disputing that point. I am simply suggesting that the idea sounds good. I even read the pamphlet on the subject produced by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin). I have read a number of other articles on the "open tech", but it is all rather vague. We already have skillcentres. The problems in distance learning will crop up—make no mistake about that. Much ground work has still to be done. I am not closing my mind to it, I am simply sceptical about how far we can take that idea.

  649
  The industrial training boards must be more effective. The 1964 and 1973 legislation said what they could do. We must develop criteria for what they should do if, as is proposed in the legislation, the boards are replaced by voluntary bodies. One difficulty is the rising overheads of employing labour. I fear that too many employers will look for short cuts and ways to reduce their training costs at a time when they should be spending more on training.
  This argument about training costs is particularly relevant when one is discussing the recruitment of young people. There are employers who will say that the cost of employing young people is too high because employers have to pay the training costs involved. Therefore, we shall have a situation in which more firms will try to subcontract work or to upgrade the employment skills of their employees as a means of saving labour.
  This Bill is premature. It gives the Secretary of State for Employment authority, yet the House has had no clear indication how he proposes to use that authority. Therefore I regard the Bill not just as a bad Bill; in some ways it is a dangerous Bill. Both sides of industry have already made it clear to the Select Committee on Employment that they need more time to consult their members. We have the irony that the CBI does not want the employer to bear the cost of £50 million, but the TUC does want that—although the TUC recognises that a longer breathing space is required by way of transition.
  I say to the Secretary of State: do not just think again about this Bill; think what it is likely to do to the future of industrial training. For that reason, I shall be opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, along with my colleagues.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. David Madel: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that a considerable amount of spadework must be done before the "open tech" can be made operational. I also agreed with him when he pointed out the place that skillcentres will have in bringing about the fulfilment of this concept. I happen to think that we have quite a bit of ground work to do on the way in which skillcentres are fitting into this country before we move on to an "open tech", although I do not in any way criticise the Government for the idea. From what the MSC has said, I am certain that a great deal of work is already being done.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill reminded us that the Bill comes at a time of acute difficulty for the economy, especially for those who are seeking work. What we have now is an opportunity to improve our training substantially so that when there is a change in the economic circumstances, this time around, at least, we shall be ready for the upturn.
  We should also remember, however, that at a time of recession, training must be seen as a cushion and a help for those who cannot find work, as well as an aid for industry. It is a two-pronged effort at present. We must never underestimate the help that training can give to people, if a suitable training course is available, if they are unfortunate enough to be out of work.
  However, in the Bill and in the research that has been done, we are not just looking at training in the next two or three years. The decisions that we take now are bound to have a significant effect on the sort of economy and the sort of trained people that we shall have in the 1990s, some
  650
  10 years ahead. From the available research, we can see that there are three important factors that will dominate this country as this decade moves to its end and we move into a new one.
  First, there is every sign that an increasing proportion of married women will be coming on to the labour market seeking suitable work. Secondly, an increasing proportion of the work force, as we reach the end of this decade, will be in their late twenties or early thirties—in other words, mature employees who will want more access to skill opportunities. Thirdly, by the end of this decade an increasing number of people coming on to the labour market will be British-born workers of overseas ethnic origin who will want access to jobs at all levels of the labour market.
  Unless we think carefully about those three factors and their implications in what we devise in the next two or three years, there is every possibility that by the end of this decade we shall find that we shall be getting it wrong again. Those three factors point to a signal development in education, namely, that there will be a general demand for a raising of the general standards of education in the next 10 years, the like of which we have not seen before, and that if this happens, as surely it must, it must increase the potential for higher levels of training in technical skills, those higher levels of training being more important than the manual skills. In other words, the very thing that we hoped for over the last 15 years—that we should become as skilled a nation as our industrial competitors in Europe—will, I think, come about if we take into account those three factors and adjust education and training accordingly.
  I want to comment on the whole question of skill shortages and how serious it is likely to be in the next two or three years. Mention has been made of the MSC pamphlet "The outlook on training" and the document reviewing the Employment and Training Act 1973. On page 13 of that report the MSC points to the fact that we are suffering from a shortage of computer skills and of many engineering craft technician and professional skills. The MSC adds to that survey done by the National Economic Development Council on the whole question of electronics, from which it was found that in South Yorkshire, Portsmouth and Reading, about 40 to 50 per cent. of firms which took part in the operation and completed the questionnaire thought that the training and skills that they were getting were not matching those which they required.
  In other words, at a time when we are trying to be more competitive, we find that the people going into those very industries in which we have discovered skill shortages are not of a sufficient skill standard.
  What we must ask the Government on the question of how much additional help is needed and how much the Government propose to do concerns paragrah 9.8 of the review of the 1973 Act, which states that the Manpower Services Commission feels that it
  "should provide supplementary funds for action by industry training organisations in pursuance of national priority needs where it is necessary to reinforce (but not displace) industry's own training efforts."
  In other words, the industries in the survey that I have just mentioned will increasingly look to the MSC to supplement, not to displace, what is already being done. When we are considering not only this Bill but the whole question of training it is right to point that out to the

  651
  Government and to ask whether they intend to push the MSC in that direction and to ensure that there are sufficient funds.
  What has also come out in the debate is not only the question of national skill shortages but that of the way in which skill shortages occur on a geographical basis. Again, I should like to draw attention to chapter 5 of the MSC inquiry. Chapter 5, paragraph 20, states:
  "If the labour force became more mobile, training to alleviate local skill shortages would be less necessary."
  It goes on to say that the increasing significance of married women in the labour force is bound to have an impact on whether the husband moves to seek a new job. The MSC doubts whether there will be substantial changes in the overall geographical mobility of labour in the next 10 to 15 years. In other words, we must solve this problem much more on a local basis and see whether we have the local arrangements correct rather than just look at it as a national problem.
  That brings me to what was mentioned by the hon. Member for Maryhill on the question of the "open tech." My information is that already a number of colleges of education and a number of education organisations are ready with plans to help in this matter and have sent in what they consider to be useful recommendations to the Government as to how they would fit in with an "open tech." What one hopes is that when the MSC comes out, not only with the report of the sector working party into training, but with its own review of how the "open tech." will take off, it will find quite a lot of evidence that in many parts of the country people are now ready to help. We would like to know what action we are likely to see before this calendar year is our.
  I draw attention to one final point in relation to the report. That is the note of reservation on what was otherwise a unanimous report on the question of "The outlook for training." There are three points that come out in this chapter. First, paragraph 4 states:
  "It is generally accepted that most cross-sector skill shortages are essentially local"
  and that they can be solved only by local action. Secondly, the reports states:
  "local education authorities should receive specific grants from the Department of Education and Science in respect of the industrial training, vocational preparation and further education closely associated".
  Thirdly, the report states that the Manpower Services Commission's membership
  "should be extended to give increased educational representation."
  That note of reservation underlines part of the Macfarlane report which called for much closer cooperation between school, industry and education departments and everybody involved in trying to increase opportunities for training and improve standards.
  I turn to a detail of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) referred in hostile terms. I refer to clause 4 which could be called the relief clause. The Government propose that an employer shall not pay the levy if he in an enterprise zone. I hope that the whole concept of whether levies shall be paid will be examined in detail in Committee. A major employer in a relatively new industry for an area is sometimes faced with sudden, unavoidable redundancies. That is especially so when there is a violent upset abroad and the export market is disrupted.
  652
  It is vital that such an employer does not diminish his training programme. We should examine clause 4 to see whether we can be more subtle and careful about levy exemptions. I am all for enterprise zones. I hope that they will be successful. However, in the last 18 months, especially in the relatively prosperous South-East, employers have encountered difficulties and have had to make people redundant. We must not do anything that will diminish such an employer's training effort.
  If we are to maintain a strong manufacturing base—and that is the only way to make the country work and to keep it together—training should be regarded as a normal and useful interlude between jobs. It should not be regarded as a temporary expedient to get out of a difficulty. Training and retraining is as important for managers as it is for people on the factory floor. The next two years are supremely difficult and dangerous for the Government because of the level of unemployment.
  The Government have two shields which they should not hesitate to use. The first shield is the youth opportunities programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) explained how we had extended that programme. The second shield is Government action on training. It is a question whether the Government bring everybody in and improve the co-operation between the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment. The Government must get across to the people that if, perchance, they are out of work, they are ready, willing and able to provide imaginative training projects. Above all, that is what I wish to result from the Bill.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). His analysis was extremely pertinent. I wish to follow the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who said that the Secretary of State had stated that he could not understand all the problems surrounding such an innocuous Bill. My right hon. Friend referred to the volume of interest outside the House.
  I wondered how the Secretary of State would match his Bill with his statement in the debate on the Queen's Speech that his Department's objective was to improve industrial training in the long term. As usual, one must look elsewhere for the reason for what is happening. I looked around to see how the Bill had arisen. Not surprisingly, a working party is involved. I could not understand why anybody would want to break up the Inner London Education Authority. We had to examine a Conservative Party working group to discover why that was proposed. The same applies in this case. Everybody in industry is opposed to breaking up the industrial training boards. The MSC is opposed to the Bill. The only argument in favour of the Bill is contained in a document by the Centre for Policy Studies.
  That document does not discuss industrial training boards and their values; it argues why they should be dismantled. The authors of the report had already made up their minds, and they proceeded to produce evidence to prove that they were right.
  The authors are Clive Elliott and Stanley Mendham. Mr. Elliott is a director of a family publishing business, a former vice-chairman of the Young Conservatives, and

  653
  Conservative parliamentary candidite for Tooting. That figures. He is also a member of the Selsdon group. Mr. Stanley Mendham runs a jewellery business. That adds up when discussing industrial training. He is supposed to be non-partisan and promotes free enterprise. That is good. They are just the chaps to do an in-depth examination of the need to get rid of industrial training boards.
  Let us examine the reasons why they want to get rid of the boards. They are illuminating. Their analysis shows that, despite the cost involved in closing ITBs, a financial advantage is involved. They say
  "The Government should concentrate on prudent general economic policies and try to even out the business cycle … The Government should take action (by close attention to the closed shop provisions) to reduce the powers of the trade unions … The Government should continue to reject incomes policies."
  They are good recommendations on which the Secretary of State can act. He has acted.
  At one stage the Secretary of State quoted an association. When challenged by one of my hon. Friends to say whom he was quoting he refused to do so, because he wanted to quote a view from both sides. There is no problem, because he was quoting people on whom the recommendations are based—the British Multiple Retailers Association, which is hardly knowledgeable on training and industry. It was that organisation that used the words quoted by the Secretary of State about
  "the negative bureaucratic activity into jobs where they could make a positive and immediate contribution".
  That is the sum total of the way in which the Bill has arrived. It is most extraordinary.
  I am parliamentary adviser to the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union. I have knowledge of the wood-using industry. About 50 per cent. of workers in the furniture trade are skilled. The industry uses woodworking machines that are particularly dangerous. It contains many small firms, the managements of which are involved in limited skills. The training record of the industry is exceptional. That is agreed by all sides of the industry. The number of craft apprentices has increased by nearly 20 per cent. The proportion of firms giving all-round training has increased sixfold. Nearly half the firms in the industry have been encouraged to provide some training for the first time.
  Coincidental with a sustained programme of safety training, the number of reportable accidents in the industry, has declined twice as fast as the national average since 1973. It is now just over 60 per cent. of the 1973 figure. The industry is particularly prone to industrial accidents. Hundreds of managers of small firms have been helped to increase their range of skills, and that has been accompanied by a marked drop in the rate at which firms have gone out of business and an increase in the rate at which productivity and exports have risen.
  As for the future, the board is already negotiating a scheme that will improve skill training. It is likely to meet all three of the objectives outlined by the Secretary of State on 29 November, namely, better vocational preparation, a modernised and flexible apprenticeship, and wider opportunitites for adult training. If this training board disappears it will be difficult to obtain agreement on any scheme of this type until a new body has built up the confidence now held by both sides of industry.
  654
  Even if a comparable scheme could be agreed by a voluntary body it is difficult to understand why most employers would pay any heed to it if no levy were at stake and if no one had a statutory duty to achieve results. I have given only one example of the extent to which the Secretary of State is mistaken in his belief that the national training effort can be sustained by voluntary means.
  Statistics published by the Furniture and Timber Industrial Training Board clearly show that the one period in its history in which no progress was made towards improving training was from 1970 to 1972. At that time the board's existence was under threat. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to emulate that situation. A large number of firms take part in the training effort only because the payment of levy obliges them to take notice. In addition, visits are made by the board's staff, who point out the opportunities and needs for training.
  In a recent study on the supply of skills, about two-thirds of employers told an industrial training board that if they had been left to themselves they would have met their skill requirements by means other than that of doing their fair share of training. Most employers would prefer to recruit workers who are already skilled, and who have been trained by other firms.
  The conclusion is clear. Without a system of statutory responsibility, without a levy that can be statutorily enforced, and without an advisory service, there will be a swift return to the bad old days of the furniture industry, when the costs of an inadequate volume of training were borne by a few of the best firms on behalf of the rest. I have been speaking of the furniture industry, which I know well. I have no doubt that the situation is the same in other industries. I ask the Secretary of State to retain the system of industrial training boards that obliges employers and employees to sit down together, to accept a statutory duty, and to maintain and improve training.
  I also ask the Secretary of State to continue to fund the operating costs of industrial training boards at the Exchequer's expense, and to do so at least until the state of the economy allows industry to take a share of the cost. For the sake of a small and illusory saving, the right hon. Gentleman is placing a whole system at risk—a system whose potential has been proved. He proposes to replace it with a system that has a track record that inspires no confidence.
  We have already noticed the Government's intention to destroy the Furniture Development Council. The council is a statutory body, which was set up just prior to the war. Without any rhyme or reason the Department of Industry intends to destroy that council. The Minister was kind enough to see me. He could say only that there was no point in talking about it, because the decision had already been taken. Although one could ask the Minister why that decision had been taken, one would find no rhyme or reason for it. The Department sent out a questionnaire that had more loaded questions than one could conceive of.
  One question asked "Do you want to pay a levy?" The Minister was delighted when he received the reply "No". He thinks that that is a good reason for getting rid of the Furniture Development Council. Other questions were put, such as "If we got rid of the council, would you pay voluntarily to have development done?" The respondents all said "Yes". They never paid for such development before the FDC was established. Anyway, it would be impossible to get the money from them.

  655
  It may be argued that we should get rid of the Furniture Development Council and the Furniture and Timber Industrial Training Board. However, history tells us that if that happens, nothing will be done in the development and protection of the furniture industry or in the training of furniture workers. We shall have to import furniture from other countries, because we shall be unskilled, inefficient, ineffective and unwilling to provide our own furniture.
  7.16 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I hope that the House will forgive me if I rudely rush away to another function shortly after I have made my contribution.
  It is worth reminding the House that this is only an enabling Bill. Some hon. Members are talking as if the Government would automatically abolish every board that they know anything about. The strategy for training is important. Everything is still up for grabs. This debate is valuable in so far as that strategy is discussed.
  Hon. Members from both sides have discussed clause 4. The Government have no one to blame but themselves if people read into the Bill something other than a concern for the quality of training. If companies in enterprise zones are exempted—whatever the virtues of enterprise zones may be and whatever the need to stimulate enterprise zones may be and whatever the need to stimulate investment in those zones may be—that exemption will smack of something other than an insistence on training and improving standards.
  Mr. Tony Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware that, perhaps sadly, there is not a training requirement but only a training levy requirement. Hon. Members in all parties may have been mistaken about that.
  Dr. Hampson: I shall refer to that later. There is a great deal of empirical evidence to suggest that in difficult times companies cannot be relied on to undertake the necessary training. That might be the case in enterprise zones.
  Under clause 3(l)(a) exemption from levy will be granted if arrangements are made—
  "for the training, or the training and further education associated with training, of persons employed or to be employed in the industry."
  We have heard many interesting and valuable contributions—particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester)—about the need to widen the scope of the boards and to involve them more at a local level—in cross-sector skill training and so on—and in non-direct training programmes such as the youth opportunities programme and provision for the 16 to 19-year-olds.
  If we wish to maintain a system that has a sanction, we must bear in mind that levy is a sanction. The terms of the Bill should not be so specific and narrow. The power of exemption from levy should be used to encourage companies to do other things such as participating in the youth opportunities programme and in provisions to give work experience to 16 to 19-year-olds.
  It is vital to bear in mind that one cannot turn training on and off. All hon. Members will agree that training is necessary and that the technological pace of change will require more training as the pool of unskilled jobs steadily diminishes. As has been said, training cannot be mucked around or pulled up by the roots. Stability is vital.
  656
  However, training is not an end in itself. We are in danger of forgetting that. Training involves improving the performance of a particular industry or company.
  We are in danger of assuming that the present system or any future system will take training away from employers. That is not the purpose. The purpose of the industrial training board system was not for the boards to do the training—to lift people out of industries—but to stimulate the companies to do the training and to ensure that the training programmes suited the needs of the companies and the industries of which they are part. In my experience, the better boards have developed useful ways of doing that not by penalising companies by imposing fines but by partnership arrangements with training advisers working out training schemes with the companies and constantly monitoring them to ensure that there is give and take and participation so that training is achieved. As a result, the companies have not had to pay any levy or penalty to the boards.
  There are many boards and varieties of practices and the quality varies. But that is not an argument for knocking out the entire system. It is an argument for reviewing it, and that is what the Government are doing. It is an argument for rationalising the system. There is an argument for readjusting the system as time goes on. As some boards finish, others should be amalgamated. However, it is also an argument for looking at new sectors where there are increasing pressures on the need to acquire skills and to train the work force.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) referred to the computer industry. Information technology is an area in which there is a shortage of skilled people. It seems to me that that sector should have a new board created to fit it.
  If we are not to go along with the ITBs, what are the alternatives? I would not object to a voluntary system if my right hon. and hon. Friends could convince me that they knew what a voluntary system would comprise, how it would operate, what sanctions it could conceivably operate under and whether it would do a better job than the albeit imperfect system that we now have. No one is arguing that the present ITB system is perfect. But what are the alternatives.?
  I see one great danger. It is not just the lack of sanctions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) suggested, the trade associaions have a vested interest. I do not trust some of them. There would be empire building. Some of them would be looking for an extra role. Therefore, we must have some form of statutory quality factor. We must lay down standards that they should be expected to meet. The danger to which I want to draw attention is that we shall develop a new and ever larger supervisory bureaucracy. The MSC numbers will increase as it attempts to keep a check on the voluntary system to make sure that it is doing its job.
  If one wears an historical hat—which used to be my job before I came to this place—and looks at what happened under the voluntary system, one finds that it was woefully inadequate. That was why Conservative Governments passed two training Acts before this proposed measure.
  I became interested in training because I spent most of my working life in education in schools and universities, and I specialised in it in the House. I looked into the system here and considered systems abroad. What struck me most was the inadequacy of the vocational side of British education. It is appalling. It has gone on like that.

  657
  Reading reports of the nineteenth century, one finds that people were comparing us with Germany and pointing out that Germany was making a specific State-based effort not only to develop vocational training in young people but to develop technologies. We are still bemoaning that fact.
  In Opposition, I launched a working party to look at the engineering industry. Before Finniston, we made our report on the engineering profession. Interestingly, it was called "The National Investment". Like all other reports, it identified the crying need in this country for more technically qualified people.
  We cannot just wish for things to happen. We have been comparing ourselves with Germany and saying that we are not matching Germany's, Japan's or other countries' efforts. But it does not happen of its own accord. We must have a catalyst in the system.
  As an education spokesman, I complain of lack of involvement in further education in schools. The school-industry relationship is one area on which all Governments have focused attention. However, it does not improve of its own accord. We must have a catalyst to bring the two sides together. We really have not got that catalyst.
  I am not arguing that the ITBs fulfil that role. They have not been very good at it. They are improving, because of their involvement in the YOP, and they are helping, but they could help more in dealing with further education. The ITBs are an instrument which exists. Therefore, we should use, adjust and improve them, not wipe them out of existence to try to set up a new scheme which will have to go through all the agonising process and the difficulties that we have already experienced.
  We need a catalyst to try to make things work. We need some organisation to check standards and to ensure that they improve. We need an organisation to advise business men, particularly small business men, and the education world. We need an organisation to act as a stimulus to schools, further education colleges or colleges of higher education to put on courses which are attuned to industry and meet the needs of local industry. We need a body which can stimulate new thinking about trade.
  All those things need a body which is industry-based. There is mutual suspicion between the educational and industrial spheres. The point about the ITBs is that they are industry-based. Most of them have been trying to improve the quality of their training advisers by taking people from industry, not putting in anybody who comes along wanting a job and does not understand industry. The ITBs know their industries and know at close level the people in the firms with which they are dealing. The boards and the training advisers, not the MSC, are the key cutting edge.
  The boards have demonstrated another need—the production of training materials. Such materials—films and packaged operations—will be needed if we are to move to distance learning. If my right hon. and hon. Friends want a test of the need for training and for bodies to assist firms to train properly, there is the proof of the pudding. They sell their wares, their training packages, in the market place to companies, because they are not available to companies elsewhere in our education and training system.
  Let us rationalise the system, let us possibly reduce the number of boards, but let us also have new boards, where necessary, to cover sectors which have not so far been
  658
  covered and which are becoming increasingly important. Let us have 10 or 11 boards, not three or four. Let us not, as it were, wipe out the system.
  We cannot assume that employers will meet the nation's training requirements. In a recession, employers are hard pressed for cash, and training is an overhead that all too many want to cut. When times are good, there are skill blockages. The supply side of the economy is not as well provided with skills and talented people as it should be. We cannot leave it to the collective effort of employers to meet the nation's training interests. The nation's interests are at stake. Therefore, we have a duty to have some form of statutory system.
  I hope that the strategy to which the Secretary of State will move will mean that not all the costs will be transferred to industry. Some statutory requirements will still need to be imposed, but I hope that at the end of the day we shall have a system which is genuinely a partnership. Whether or not the boards are called ITBs, we have the framework, so let us get on and improve it.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I have listened to the whole of the debate. I heard the speech by the Secretary of State for Employment and the brilliant speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Having listened to those three speeches in particular—speeches that analysed the Bill, and the extent to which the House should consider the industrial training boards in the light of the Bill, I should like to spend a little time raising and highlighting the objections.
  The CBI declared in a letter sent to Members of Parliament on 6 February:
  "This is absolutely the wrong time to propose to off-load £51 million a year on to industry for the operating costs of training boards (or alternatively their substantial winding-up costs). It will add to the problems of maintaining standards and volume of training.
  The CBI strongly supports Government efforts to reduce public expenditure, but adding now to the costs of the hard-pressed private sector is not the right way to achieve this.
  The CBI supports the sector-by-sector review of the ITBs and is encouraging employers' associations to provide clear views as to how, statutorily or voluntarily, training should be organised in their sector."
  What is the view and attitude of the TUC? It considers that the ITBs have done a good job in the face of difficulty. It prefers a levy-grant system, with all the employers being liable. It wants greater union involvement in training decisions at plant level and no abolition of boards. Indeed, it argues for additional boards. It sees no difficulty in reconciling social and economic goals and wants greater statutory control and public funds to ensure adequate levels of training in transferable skills.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster referred to the circulars, letters and statements of the chairmen of the 24 training boards and the observations that they sent to the Secretary of State.
  It is worth referring to John Huxley's article that appeared in The Times on 24 January. He wrote:
  "Government intentions to reorganise the system of industrial training have run into fresh opposition. The chairmen of all but one of the 24 training boards have told Mr. James Prior, Secretary of State for Employment, that a return to a voluntary system would be a retrograde step.
  They say that many companies would discontinue training and resort to the practice of poaching trained personnel from more reputable and responsible companies."

  659
  I shall refer specifically to the Distributive Industry Training Board. Before doing so, I declare that I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Allied and Distributive Workers, a union that received a great deal of publicity a few weeks ago on a Saturday at Wembley. The Distributive Industry Training Board issued a statement that reads:
  "The Distributive Industry Training Board, at a special board meeting, expressed its concern at: the implications for the industry if the Board were to be abolished as part of the Government's restructuring of the country's Industrial Training Boards. The Board is issuing this statement to all sections of the distributive trades, to Government departments, and to MPs in order to give expression to this concern. It places on record some of the industry's training achievements since the Board was established as a statutory body in 1968, leading to a more efficient and profitable industry.
  Distribution is Britain's second largest industry. It employs one in ten of the working population. One in five of all school-leavers take their first job within the industry. There are more than 30 different trade sectors. More than 100 separate Trade Associations, many with direct training interests, cater for employers' needs. More than 100 Colleges of Further Education are involved in regular education/training of distributive students.
  The Board believes that a major factor in economic recovery is a well-trained work force. Without trained manpower there can be no effective use of the changing technology which affects the Distributive Trades as much as any other industrial sector.
  The bulk of the public's retail purchases are made from firms within the scope of the Board. The efficiency with the industry—retail and wholesale—runs its business directly affects the cost of goods and, therefore, the Retail Price Index."
  The board suggests that it
  "has always exercised its statutory right to raise training levels in order to pump-prime and stimulate a variety of training operations to meet the industry's wider needs for trained labour. As a result of its policies: The number of trained instructors in distribution has risen from 10,000 to 100,000 … More than 100 voluntary training groups are serviced and assisted financially.
  £1·5 million has been given in direct aid to trade organisations and groups.
  £3·5 million in grants for the training and development of individuals have been awarded.
  £1 million worth of aids—publications, films and video programmes—not available commercially have been produced for the industry."
  In conclusion, the board talks about its future and states:
  "It is the Board's unanimous view that only a continuation of its statutory role will ensure the development of training within the large numbers of voluntary organisations which look to it for training, advice and financial assistance.
  The Board believes that no system of voluntary organisations, without the statutory support of the Board, will ensure the maintenance of training standards amid the technological changes rapidly overtaking the industry."
  I ask the House to give those matters consideration before the Division.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I welcome the broad approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill. My remarks will be in the same broad vein. I was interested to hear that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is wary of radical change. By contrast I welcome it. Unless we have some dramatic new thinking on training we shall not keep pace with events.
  First, I hope that we shall not determine the future pattern of training in terms of whether the industrial training boards should stay or go or whether the State or industry should finance them. The review seems to have sparked off recrimination between the boards and the
  660
  Manpower Services Commission. The boards have not been sparing in their defence to judge from the paper that has been showered down on hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  There is no judgment that suffices to describe the boards' performance. I do not want to get bogged down in the argument about which board has done well and which not so well. Surely this is the time to produce answers covering the whole spectrum of training—initial and continuing. I suspect that I shall be treading a path that has been established already by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), although there has been no collusion between us. We have been tinkering with training for years, doing a bit here and there. The results are plainly inadequate, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged.
  My second point is that we should be doing more training. We do not do enough and what we do is a curious hotchpotch of apprenticeships, which have their roots in antiquity and which last for years, and, by contrast, work experience schemes which last for weeks or a few months. There are various types of special training within industry and other schemes to impart special skills which have begun in various ways, most recently by the Manpower Services Commission.
  It is no good arguing, as we do time and again in the House, over who has caused the mounting unemployment. Instead, we should be thinking of how to deal with the problem. It will not be solved simply by pressing the economic accelerator and hoping that a vast number of job vacancies will be created. We shall have to live with a high degree of unemployment for a considerable time.
  In a rather uncertain response to that, successive Governments have moved towards, or perhaps felt their way towards, universal coverage for the 16 to 19 age group with some form of training. We have not decided that that is what we want to achieve, although it is a sensible response to the manpower crisis that we face.
  In the last analysis we must recognise that we shall get more training only by paying for it. What bothers many Conservative Members is that we have not had value for money so far. Perhaps we have not yet tapped all sources of funds which might be available to assist an expansion of the training programe. Not until the Government show their commitment will industry and others get down in earnest to making the best possible arrangements.
  My third point is to try to suggest a new form of structure which might be considered. I wonder whether it is right to look at training, as we have tended to, on the basis of training by the industrial sector or as a quick and easy response to lengthening dole queues. Those are the two ways in which we have seen the greatest increase in the quantity of training in recent years. But the two have not been brought together. We lack flexibility, permanence of schemes and money. Would it not be better to think in terms of a geographical network of training, by having area or county committees? I should not like to be committed to how many special committees there should be throughout the country. The Manpower Services Commission has 28 area committees. I doubt whether that is enough, but I am not sure that we should want to go as far as having a committee in every county.
  An area or county committee made up of local authority representatives, employers, trade unions and voluntary organisations acting as an advisory council, with an executive attached to it, might respond better to the local

  661
  needs of that community or area. The conventional wisdom would say that the executive—those with the express responsibility for extending training and trying to ensure that people were given training opportunities—would come from the Manpower Services Commission. A more unconventional wisdom might suggest an element of privatisation. If we had incentives in the scheme whereby people were hired on the basis of results, we might achieve something dramatically better than we have had so far.
  A geographically based network would be better able to assess what was needed in individual areas rather than training in a sectoral way. A county or area committee would discover whether there was a need for engineers, electricians, woodworkers or plumbers and would be able to ensure that school leavers and others were aware of the opportunities in that area and could be trained accordingly.
  A local approach might have the additional advantage of attracting more co-operation from local employers. I, too, am sceptical about how far voluntarism can extend. But employers have been prepared to come in on special schemes to help local youngsters with work experience and training if they could see a benefit within the local community. We should try to harness that in a better way than we have so far.
  I do not think that area committees need spell the demise of the sectoral industry training boards. The boards would still have a role. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), I do not wish to be pinned down on the ideal number of boards resulting from the review, but I see their services being engaged by area training boards, so they would remain a major force in training.
  An area-based training initiative would have a beneficial effect on the types of courses run at skillcentres. Hon. Members will be aware that there has been criticism of the types of courses on offer at skillcentres, and doubt has been expressed about whether they have been in keeping with the needs of the nation. That initiative might also affect courses run at colleges of further education.
  There remains the question of how we finance training, no matter how it is organised. I have already said that one gets only what one is prepared to pay for. I am inclined to the view that some sort of national training contribution has to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) said, timing is of the essence when we come to putting further burdens on employers. Such a national training contribution may have to be introduced at a time when other levies on industry are being reduced. There may be a system of exemptions according to the contributions which employers make to training schemes within their area, not necessarily in cash, but in kind.
  Other sources of funding might be more readily harnessed to an area structure. Local authorities and voluntary organisations might be persuaded to come in on certain schemes. We have already had examples throughout the country of initiatives that have been sparked off either by a voluntary organisation or by a local company. Money has been attracted from various trusts because a scheme has been felt to be useful to help local youngsters and the needs of industry in that area. We should pursue that further.
  There would have to be a State contribution. However, the State is already making a sizeable contribution to
  662
  training. If we are to ensure that training is most relevant to the needs of industry, it is inescapable that employers will have to play a major part in financing.
  Finally, there is the problem of control. One would assume that the Manpower Services Commission would continue to have an audit function. Bearing in mind the arguments that are still taking place about the precise nature of the Manpower Services Commission's relationship with the industrial training boards. I hope that the hand of audit will be lighter in the future than it has tended to be.
  Whether unemployment peaks at 2¾ million or any other figure, there is a massive job to do to make sense of our manpower situation. In all probability we must expect a smaller number of people at work in the future. All the indications are that their competence level will have to be higher in the face of the technology with which they will be dealing. It would be for the greater good of British industry if their contentment level were also higher.
  The challenge is what to do sensibly at a price that we can afford—indeed, we must afford—with those who are preparing to enter the work force and how to maintain their most effective employability throughout their period in it. I hope that the Government will go beyond the possibilities raised by the Bill and will chart a new course for training which is truly in keeping with our national need.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), whose views on these matters are always interesting.
  It is the Opposition's duty to save the Secretary of State from himself. He has an unenviable brief. He stands at the Dispatch Box month after month condemned to defend the indefensible—an unprecedented avalanche of job destruction. He stands condemned to recycle the tired cliches of the Prime Minister, herself the mistress of the hunt with her pack of Treasury hounds—the unspeakable in pursuit of the immeasurable.
  The Secretary of State for mass unemployment has one hope of avoiding pillory at the hands of historians. It is to initiate a great leap forward in the quantity and quality of training. Yet, in bringing forward the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman sits absent mindedly sawing through the branch on which he sits.
  The Secretary of State, in his statement to the House on 20 November, said that British industry seriously lags behind its major international competitors in its attitude to training, that British industry devotes inadequate resources to training, that there is therefore an urgent need to extend and improve industrial training, that there are three areas requiring urgent attention—vocational preparation, the apprenticeship system and adult training and retraining—and that there is widespread recognition of the continued need for some sort of industrial training bodies.
  Any rational person listening to that statement would have concluded that those ambitious objectives could be fulfilled only by increasing public involvement in training and by strengthening the training infrastructure, as recommended by the MSC's "Outlook for Training" and by the Think Tank's recent report. He might have gone on to reflect that tripartite discussions among the major partners—management, trade unions and the education service—at national and local level, such as occur in the ITBs, would be the best way of securing co-operation. Yet

  663
  the Secretary of State, in his naive belief in voluntarism, which had failed miserably before 1964 and has not succeeded in any other European country, is about to dessicate the training boards.
  Presumably the right hon. Gentleman believes that he is reducing public involvement by the Bill and reducing his budget by £50 million into the bargain. Let me warn him that when voluntarism results in a serious reduction in the quantity and quality of training, as it surely will, he will look to some public body, presumably the MSC, to help him achieve his ambitious objectives. The MSC will either have to recreate the industrial training boards or assume much greater central control. Without the buffer of the ITBs, industry will be subjected to much greater centralisation and bureaucratic control—a position far less acceptable than the present one.
  It is widely agreed that at the root of our prolonged relative industrial decline is an inability to respond flexibly to increasing economic and technological change. It is further agreed that our work force needs to be much more flexible and adaptable and must be capable of being trained and retrained frequently during the course of their working lives. Yet the Secretary of State puts his faith in voluntarism.
  It is widely recognised that national training need exceeds the sum of individual company needs. Yet the Secretary of State puts his faith in voluntarism. It is further recognised that investment in training fluctuates inappropriately with the trade cycle and is unduly susceptible to adverse cash flows. Yet the Secretary of State puts his faith in voluntarism.
  It is universally acknowledged that there has been a marked reduction in apprenticeships. That is a serious problem in the North-East where pre-16 academic performance has been much more influenced by the spur of apprenticeship than by the prospect of higher education. Even more sadly, we know that apprentices in various stages of training are being sacked in large numbers. Yet the Secretary of State puts his faith in voluntarism.
  It is hardly surprising that all the ITB chairmen wrote to the Secretary of State on 21 January about voluntarism. Their views have already been quoted, but I wish to quote them again:
  "With one exception, it is the unanimous conviction of ITB Chairmen that this will be a retrograde step and place their industries in the unfortunate position they were in prior to the 1964 Act. Whilst many reputable firms will continue training, many others will make no such effort and resort to their previous practice of 'poaching' from more responsible firms."
  That is also the view of a private training group, the South-West Durham Engineering Training Association in my constituency, for the work of which I have the highest regard.
  Of course the work of the ITBs has been patchy. There are problems of cross-sector skills, and the regional and local dimensions of training are weak. However, those problems are not insuperable. Indeed, they must, and can, be resolved within the existing framework. The Secretary of State cannot deny that since 1964, and again since 1973, there has been an increase in the quality and range of training.
  The burden of proof that voluntarism can maintain the present position, let alone substantially improve it, must rest with the Secretary of State. But I warn him that the overwhelming view of those who know and care about training is that voluntarism will not and cannot work. The opposite view is held by the backwoodsmen on the
  664
  Conservative Benches and by some in the boardrooms who have little experience but who are paranoic about Government involvement in business.
  The Secretary of State has his ear to the ground, but it is stuck in the wrong patch. He is in danger of further abandoning our young people to the vagaries of market forces. Our work force is our most valuable resource. Tragically, 2½ million are without work. They are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and of us all. But so, too, are the remaining 23½ million who are seriously underutilised, undertrained and undervalued.
  The Secretary of State says that he wants to help, but by this ill-considered Bill he is delivering those people into the hands of the most ill-informed, short-sighted and callous of the Tory paymasters. The Opposition must save them from the Secretary of State and must save the right hon. Gentleman from himself. I trust that those on the Government Benches who care about training and who care about the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobbies tonight.
  8 pm
  Mr. Tony Speller: Perhaps it is time to bring in a worm's eye view of industrial training. We worms, while doing a useful job around the grass and on the ground, occasionally get stamped on by large and important feet for which we have no love and of which we have no knowledge. We pay the price. The essence of the training board principle is that the volunteer method will not work but that conscription will. I was a national service conscript. There is no one more adept at fiddling and fooling authority than the unwilling conscript.
  I can speak with some expertise on the subject of training, not only because my own small company has recently received a DITB award, which we are proud and glad to have. I can say without fear of being called a nihilist or one of the strange backwoods creatures, that we worms, who secure the awards, have to tell the Opposition, once again, that training is not compulsory. We are charged a levy. We may pay the levy and forget it, or pay the levy and seek to get some of the money back by following the rules of the game. The argument is simple. If we take part in the course, we will get some benefit, perhaps a lot, and get back all or part of the levy. This means, inevitably, that the more firms that participate the more levy they will get back, and the higher the levy becomes the following year.
  There is another side to the story. In our case, we had to carry out training in order to get our money back. We carried out training. Frankly, to our surprise, we found ourselves a better firm for that training. To the question whether we would have done useful training without compulsion, the answer is "Yes". To the question whether we would have done so much, the answer is "No". In the case of our own small business, which is more a cufflink than a chain of shops, we have benefited, on balance, from the DITB, but many firms in my constituency will be glad to see the back of that organisation. Without the particular interest of one or more management personnel in any firm, the results of work are negligible, although the grant brought back may be substantial, for reasons to which I shall turn.
  In preparation for the debate I consulted widely in my constituency. The North Devon Manufacturers's Association tells me:

  665
  "The general feeling is that the Boards did a good job initially but that they have achieved their purpose even to the extent that their interference in the running of businesses is resented. They have outgrown their usefulness and should be terminated. Most businesses had organised their own in-company training schemes or used schemes within their own industry, as for example, the British Pharmaceutical Society and Chemical Industries Association".
  Similarly, a young group of business men in the sales and service industry have formed their own training group. They enjoyed training and being trained. I recently presented seven of them with DITB certificates. They make full use of the grants available.
  Constant reference has been made, not always with true attribution, to the vast amount of work done by the Furniture and Timber Trade Board. I imagine that the board must have spent a great deal of money—its money or our money, but someone's money—to push its case to every hon. Member. I have counted five references or quotations relating to its work. I do not know whether it is the Government's position that an individual board has the right to use the money intended for training to propagate its own success story or, more importantly, to ensure its own survival. Interestingly, I have had strong praise from that board from one small company. A slightly larger company says:
  "On balance, the Training Board is a luxury which industry cannot afford. Efficient and profitable companies will train staff effectively whether or not they receive financial assistance. The documents are usually produced by most companies just before a visit by the Training Board Officer or at the end of the company's annual claims period. The failing of the training board is that it does not actually train anyone and only by means of indirect blackmail does it attempt to encourage its members to do so …"
  We have an excellent range of technical colleges throughout the country. I fear that technical colleges are barely used in training through the boards. A whole new industry has grown up through the training board levy, in the shape of seminars. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) spoke about the success of firms selling equipment for these courses. That is not surprising. It is a self-perpetuating business. The courses lead to the purchase of equipment. The courses are funded by the levy. So it goes on. It may be good business, but I do not believe that it is good business for the country. A highly respected company in my area reports that during the course of the year he generally receives one short visit from a training board adviser and once every two years a visit from the training board examiner. These are the only effective contacts that occur.
  I have benefited from training. If we are to talk about industrial training boards we should also talk critically about the MSC itself. A minnow that cost £250,000 seven or eight years ago now costs £15 million or £16 million, with clearly more to come. The MSC role is different from the industrial training role. It is largely a social role. The youth opportunities programme does not create work. It is an aspirin against the pain of unemployment. It is not a cure. Work experience is another "funny" as seen by we who are the worms. Work experience is the easiest way of getting cheap labour. It is the cheapest possible, because it is free. I wonder how many people would be in genuine employment if firms were not able to get a work experienced youngster for a few months for nothing. This
  666
  is the problem. Every good idea tends to distort. The work experience programme has distorted our retail trade economy.
  The functions are different. The training board is designed to produce a highly skilled work force and highly skilled management. The MSC does not at present have that function. There is a sinister sentence in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill which leaves ajar the door to greater cost. It reads:
  "Changes in the number or scope of training boards would lead to changes in the staffing requirements in the Manpower Services Commission, but this cannot be quantified at this stage."
  Many hon. Members recall how this game of incremental musical chairs has been played over the last decade in the reorganisation of local government, the National Health Service, and the water industry. All these interesting reforms were carried out with the best intentions in the world. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, when a number of the ITBs are shut down and their functions transferred to a bigger body that does not possess the technical expertise, more staff will be needed. Before my right hon. Friend makes up his mind in consultation with the MSC, I have one suggestion. Should we ask those who pay the levies and those who get the benefits how they feel about the industries?
  I am aware that there is a vast piece of paper, which is hard to read and difficult to fill in. I speak as an expert on these forms. I can complete VAT forms, no less. The latest form is another example of that wodge of statistics that goes on producing nothing except more statistics. I ask my hon. Friend, when he carries through the Bill, as he will, to look carefully and cannily at all forms of training and to ask individual firms how they would like to see matters proceed, not with a 15-page statistical memorandum, of which eight pages are instructions on how to fill in the forms.
  To let the MSC take over the advisory function is not unakin to inviting the spider to consider—in a judicial fashion, of course—whether the fly should be inside its web. Some of our ITBs are very good and must be preserved. Some may well have outlived their usefulness, and can be closed down or merged. But I should very much regret it if, for the sake of a doctrinaire approach, we built one big body in substitution for one large and several small bodies. I suspect that quite often—as we always say on the Conservative Benches—small is beautiful. In my knowledge it is normally more efficient.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. John Evans: The backdrop to the debate is nearly 3 million people out of work and hundreds of thousands of boys and girls who cannot obtain the apprenticeships that they desperately require and that their fathers and mothers wish them to receive. As many of my hon. Friends said, the background to the debate is also the Secretary of State's words in the debate on unemployment on 26 November:
  "I want to make it clear that the Government's aim will be to extend the area of reliance on voluntary arrangements as far as possible, and to keep statutory industrial training boards in a few key sectors".—[Official Report, 26 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 688.]
  Following from that, clause 1 will give the right hon. Gentleman the power to abolish industrial training boards.
  Every intelligent person accepts that there should be a continuing review of all the work of all the boards. No one has suggested that the board should be fixed for all time,

  667
  or that they should never review their work. No one would suggest that the House should never review their work or the working of the legislation. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State to justify introducing the Bill at this stage, when the correct method would have been to await the report of the Manpower Services Commission and then to have a full-scale debate, in which the views of all those in industrial training could be taken into account. Then we could have had legislation that was non-political and non-partisan.
  Party politics should not come into the consideration of the need for industrial training. Yet, despite the Secretary of State's honeyed words, the Government have introduced a Bill that is contentious, political and controversial. It will be bitterly contested in Committee. That is not how to proceed with legislation on a matter that has been non-controversial for many years.
  The Second Reading of the Bill that became the Industrial Training Act 1964 was agreed without a Division in November 1963. All sides of the House welcomed it. Then, and for many years since, all sides paid lip service to the necessity for training. Tonight we are considering a Bill that can only set industrial training back.
  It is too much for the Secretary of State to suggest that it is other people who are creating uncertainty. It was his words that created a great deal of uncertainty among the first-class men and women who man the boards. It is morally wrong for him to introduce legislation that puts in jeopardy those who have given so much to industrial training. Even at this late stage the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the need for the Bill.
  The main purpose of the 1964 Act was to improve the supply and the quality of the country's skilled manpower. The background was the general recognition that there was a grave shortage of skilled manpower and womanpower, and that industry was not training the quality or the quantity required.
  It goes without saying that many firms—the best firms—always had excellent training schemes and spent a great deal on training boys and girls that they would require in the future, but it is incontestable that many other firms, particularly small firms, were not training anyone and were happy to poach the supply of skilled labour when the boys and girls finished their apprenticeships.
  I am one of the few hon. Members who have served a skilled apprenticeship. Mine, which I did in the shipbuilding industry, was not as good as the apprentices have received since the 1964 Act. One can only assume that the Government are prepared to go back to 1964. That is in line with much of the regressive legislation that they have introduced throughout their unfortunate two years in office.
  Each board was charged with two main functions: first, to ensure that the amount of training in an industry was sufficient; secondly, to publish recommendations with regard to the nature and length of training for different occupations and the further education that should be associated with it. Most fair-minded people would agree that the majority of boards have done those jobs.
  It would be nonsense to suggest that the boards have solved the problem. In certain areas and in certain crafts, particularly in the engineering and electrical crafts, there is still a considerable shortage of skilled people. But there is no overall shortage in the country.
  668
  The present Government have played havoc with the employment transfer scheme, which allowed skilled people to move from one part of the country to another to obtain employment. The changes that they have made have had a detrimental effect on skilled workers travelling from one part of the country to another. When Conservative Members continually speak of the shortage of skilled labour, I hope that they will take into account what their own Government have done since May 1979.
  Those who would criticise certain boards have a duty to name the boards concerned and to tell the House where they have fallen down. It is not enough to say that there are good, bad and indifferent boards, and on that basis to introduce this legislation. We should be told which are the bad and the indifferent boards. The Secretary of State has not offered a shred of evidence to suggest which are the bad boards.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has made clear is that he is interested in saving £50 million. I doubt whether he will save that sum. I suspect that the matter has more to do with the Government's public sector borrowing requirement or the various fairy tales that they tell us about it than with the realities of the situation.
  The Government must agree that if we go back to the voluntary arrangements we shall simply be going back to the period before 1964, when the good employers trained and the bad employers did not. In that respect, because of the tremendous decline in British industry since the Tory Government came into office, employers have cut dramatically the taking-on of young people. It is easy for employers quickly to cut back in that area.
  Many firms and many hon. Members can report cases where, during the past two years, employers have cut down substantially on the number of young people being taken on. We all know the end-product of that. I do not wish to raise the spectre of vandalism, or how much it costs in terms of keeping people unemployed. However, it is generally accepted that the cost to the nation of keeping 3 million people unemployed is about £10 billion. When we talk about saving £50 million—a highly doubtful £50 million—we should put that figure beside the £10 billion that unemployment is costing the country at present.
  If, as seems likely, some boards will be abolished after the Bill is enacted and after the review has been carried out, there will be heavy pressure on Members of Parliament for other boards to be abolished. It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to imply that he is a reasonable man and that he will act in a reasonable manner. We have no guarantee that the Secretary of State for Employment will continuously occupy his present position, and I shudder to think what certain Ministers and Back Benchers would do with this legislation. We have heard only one speech in outright opposition to industrial training boards—from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor)—but we know that other Conservative Members think similarly. This will be an extremely fascinating Committee on which to serve, because Conservative Members will be in difficulty if they oppose our amendments. We shall ensure that their names and their votes are well and truly recorded.
  I am aware that time is short and that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I wish to emphasise one point. It has been said repeatedly that training and retraining are essential, yet the Government are introducing a Bill that can only set back industrial training. In that respect, we

  669
  wonder about the mentality of the Government. The Bill is unnecessary, and I sincerely hope that if we cannot defeat it on Second Reading we shall maul it in Committee. In Committee we shall produce a Bill that will do something for industrial training. This Bill will have only a controversial effect on training.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: I have a constituency interest in this proposed legislation, particularly with regard to training establishments. At High Ercall in my constituency we have the MOTEC training centre, which is run by the Road Transport Industry Training Board. It is an interesting centre and I have visited it on many occasions. My comments will centre mainly on that board, but they will also cover points that are equally applicable to other training boards.
  There is general agreement that something should be done about training. We must improve and extend our training. Our argument today has been about how much should be done. At a time of recession, it is essential that training be given added emphasis. In my constituency I have the highest level of unemployment within the West Midlands. Only last week there was an announcement that there would be a further 1,000 redundancies at GKN-Sankey. Now, about 9,000 of my constituents are out of work, and, although we are a new town area, the new town corporation has had to advertise for certain skilled workers, not only throughout Britain but also in Rhodesia and South Africa. When it happens at a time of very high unemployment, it suggests that something is wrong. It is important that more emphasis is given to training. When the economy moves forward, as I am sure it will, the need will be even greater than it is today.
  If we accept the current need and the even greater future need for trained workers, we must turn to the existing training boards to see whether they make the best use of the available resources and also see whether the Bill helps or endangers, as some hon. Members suggest, the future of training.
  We hear of the suggested extravagances and the over-provisions made by certain boards. That may be so. However, in the case of which I have knowledge it is not so. The Road Transport Industry Training Board has recently rationalised its training methods. That has resulted in craft training being moved to Scotland and in management training being concentrated at High Ercall. This is a response to the present situation.
  If all boards are not being as responsive to the current economic situation as that, what can be done to make them do so? The Bill allows for the financing of the boards to move away from the Government, supported by the levy, to financing by the industries themselves. This I support wholeheartedly. If an industry is paying, it will make sure that any extravagances which are there today are cut out and that training is offered in a more appropriate way to that industry.
  Industry is a much better judge than politicians on either side and the Government of any political party of what is needed. The industry, not the Government, will decide the pay of its employees. We have had suggestions that certain employees either are paid excessively or are getting very
  670
  good conditions and pensions. If that is the case, and the industry has to pay, I suggest that it will put that part of its house in order very quickly.
  That brings me to clause 1 and the powers which the Secretary of State is taking to abolish and to amend training boards. I am fearful at this time of economic recession of the practical result of moving a board from statutory to voluntary status, however appealing that argument may be in theory. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) drew attention to the disappearance of apprenticeships in the present economic position. We have to accept that that is happening, and it is very likely that, in the short term, industry will not be prepared to put in the necessary money on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is worrying that the power is in the form that it is in at the moment.
  I hope that the Government, possibly as the Bill proceeds, will consider changing the wording slightly in order to allow at least an affirmative order in both Houses before either changing or abolishing one of the boards. Then we shall have an opportunity of debating a board's merits or faults in deciding what we feel should happen to it.
  The argument for bringing in this Bill before we knew what the Manpower Services Commission would recommend concerned the delay that would be occasioned by so doing. I suggest that an affirmative order of both Houses would not delay the implementation of policies very much.
  I question whether the MSC is the body to give too strong advice to the Secretary of State. I say that because of the problem which has arisen in my constituency concerning skillcentres. The commission has closed a skillcentre in a locality with the highest level of unemployment in the area. At the same time, it has expressed a wish to open a new skillcentre down the road in Redditch. This seemed to be folly. It appeared to be politics, with a small "p", at work in the MSC. I am worried about the fact that the same body should be making recommendations to the Secretary of State on which decisions will be taken.
  I hope that the Minister will not only be able possibly to offer some safeguards and some opportunity for the House to debate these decisions on future once the MSC's recommendations are received, but that he will also consider letting us know what other consultations there will be and whether he will consider producing a consultative document to allow us all—not just hon. Members but people in industry and in the unions—to put forward what they think about individual boards. This seems desirable to make sure that, in looking at every board, we decide which are the right ones to alter.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: One of the most interesting features of the debate has been the remarkable number of Conservative Members who have expressed views greatly at variance with those of the Secretary of State.
  Those views can be fairly summed up by two remarks in particular. One was made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who was worried about the concept of the baby being thrown out with the bath water. The other was made by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who said that, although there was a case for reviewing the system—no one disagrees with that—that

  671
  was not a reason for knocking out the whole system. I do not know how people with such views can conscientiously vote for the Bill, because clause 1 is specifically about throwing out the baby with the bath water. That is what it is there for. The Secretary of State made it clear that, when he gets those powers, he will knock out the whole system with the exception of what he calls a few key sectors. Therefore, I do not know how those Conservative Members can support the Bill after expressing those views.
  The Secretary of State has not been so kind as to tell us what are the few key sectors which will be saved from being knocked out. He said that they would be sectors in which it would be considered essential to retain the industrial training boards in order to achieve certain wider training objectives. He did not even tell us what training objectives he hoped to achieve, although he gave us some wordy, but woolly, objectives in the second half of his speech. Possibly those are the ones he was talking about.
  It is unclear whether the right hon. Gentleman means that all the other industries which are not key sectors are not worth bothering about in relation to those wider objectives or whether they need the objectives but can achieve them without ITBs. It would have been kind of the Secretary of State to tell us what he meant by that sentence. It would be nice of him to tell people working in industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, people in industry would be interested to find out which industries are not considered by the Government to be of any great importance. There may be some interesting reactions when they find out.
  I am worried about the way in which the Government are once again—as so often before—taking powers to act in an arbitrary and dictatorial way. That feature comes out particularly in employment matters. I wonder why Ministers feel that they are always bound to be right, whatever everyone else may say. Whatever advice may be given by people who are experienced and skilled in these matters, the Government must be right. The unshakable conviction that everyone else is out of step causes much concern to many people both inside and outside the House. I wish that from time to time Ministers would show enough modesty to accept that people who have worked in industry all their lives and who have been involved in industrial relations and industrial training have something to say which they ought to listen to. That is not the way in which the Government behave nowadays.
  Instead of contemplating the abolition of ITBs, the Government ought to be working out ways of increasing their effectiveness and expanding their scope, possibly by giving them new roles in various areas, such as promotion and publicity. There is a need to persuade young people that it is in their interest to achieve skills to enter skilled employment. Employers should be persuaded of the need to increase the number of apprenticeships available, even during a recession or a slump. The Secretary of State expessed his concern about that matter today, as well as previously on 26 November. Surely the ITBs themselves could be doing a useful job here.
  When I was a member of the youth employment committee in Rotherham in the 1950s, during one of the periodic credit squeezes that we used to get then, we were very concerned about a severe shortage of apprenticeships for boys and girls. We found that it was by no means a local problem: it was a national one. The Government of the day set up a departmental committee under the
  672
  chairmanship of the then Mr. Robert Carr, now Lord Carr, which produced the Carr report, which drew attention to this serious matter.
  That warning was totally justified a generation later by a serious shortage of skilled people. Now we shall build up exactly the same problem for the next generation. We must give a great deal of attention to this matter and I am pleased that many hon. Members have commented on it today.
  One of the most disastrous consequences of the appalling unemployment among young people today is the fact that we are pouring down the drain a great potential of skill without which the country will not survive in the twentieth century. These youngsters, who should now be acquiring the skills that the country will need in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, will be driven into a hopeless and despairing backwater of idleness instead of gathering the training and the skill that the country, never mind the youngsters themselves, will desperately need.
  We need a sophisticated planning system to assess properly the manpower requirements of each industry, to take account of technological change and its effect on manpower requirements, to assess its effect on the appropriate length of the working week and the proper age for retirement and to guarantee proper training at all levels, in apprenticeships, in university courses and in the polytechnics. Without such a policy, we shall not solve this problem.
  I am afraid that the Bill will drive us back rather than forward. The most precious of any country's natural resources are its people. A country that wastes its people by keeping them unemployed when there is work which needs to be done, and which keeps them unskilled when skills are needed, is heading for disaster.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Richard Needham: I shrink from bandying words with the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) when he is in such good form as he was today, but he did not do the cause of training much good. He largely exaggerated the effects of the Bill and of what my right hon. Friend is trying to do.
  On 27 November, the general secretary of the TUC said:
  "With determination and the provision of adequate resources, the various interests can bring about the fundamental change of attitudes that a programme of this kind entails. But it will need careful handling, and a basis of mutual trust and confidence is critical."
  I believe on reflection, that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he did not help that cause today.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not accept that there were severe problems in our training arrangements, described in "Outlook on Training", the CPRS review and many other reports. It cannot be denied that everything is not a bed of roses. He replied that a touch on the tiller was all that was required.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that that is sufficient to put right our out-dated apprenticeship system? Is he prepared to say that a touch on the tiller is as far as we should go for the 35 per cent. of young people who have no systematic training after they leave school? Is he happy about the fact that all YOP and YOP-related courses are offering, besides some basic work experience, any adequate level of training? Is he content with the provision for education in the last year at school?

  673
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the 100,000 TOPs courses would be reduced to 55,000. Is he convinced that they provide adequate courses for those who need training? Is he saying that skillcentres are providing the qualifications that industrialists are prepared to rely on when they employ people? Those matters are extremely worrying. They need more than a touch on the tiller.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. Our exchange of words a few hours ago was about the Bill, the MSC's report "Outlook on Training" and the structure of the industrial training boards. I said that everything was not right with the industrial training boards' structure but that the Secretary of State was exaggerating what was wrong and using that as a justification for butchering the boards. We were not talking about whether I was satisfied with the apprenticeship and training systems. There may be a great deal wrong with those systems, but that is another matter. Perhaps we could debate the same in Committee.
  Mr. Needham: I am grateful for that explanation. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear in his statement on 16 November that he is as much committed as anyone else to a reform of the present training system. I am glad to say that I have rather more confidence in my right hon. Friend's judgment and determination than have Opposition Members.
  I turn to the record of the industrial training boards. It is clear that of the 24 training boards some will be better than others. We must be careful when listening to the firms which criticise them. Such firms can usually be put into two categories—those which carry out adequate training and, inevitably resent having to pay a levy which they then claim back because of the administrative costs of making the claims, and those which do not carry out adequate training or do not provide any training at all and resent having to pay a levy. But there is a third sort—those which benefit from industrial training boards, want them to continue, and want to support them.
  I take slight issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who complained that the Furniture and Timber Trade Board had explained to hon. Members how well it was doing. That is a perfectly legitimate action because the board is trying to get across to hon. Members that it is providing a worth-while service. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel Jones) and I have received many letters from people supporting the retail industry training board. If real criticism is to be made, it could be of the lack of definition of the role of training boards, which has never been clearly understood.
  There is some need for reorganisation. As time passes, each training board needs to consider its relationship within its industry. It may be better to spread them sectorally, regionally or nationally, rather than industrially. Of course, they have difficulties in their relationships with the MSC. That has come out clearly in all the reviews that have been undertaken.
  The Government must have an overall strategy, which they must publish. There must be a role for the industrial training boards within that strategy. I shall be blunt about the fact that I do not believe that voluntarism will work, The boards should set the standards. Perhaps they should work with the MSC on a contract basis. If they are not
  674
  statutory, they will die. We should then have two classes of trained workers—those who come under statutory industrial training boards and will have received reasonable training, and those who do not. the Government must carefully consider the question of voluntarism.
  It is of crucial importance that industry takes control of funding. But that cannot be done at a time when industry is suffering as much as it is now. The Secretary of State must look very carefully at the way he phases in the funding and over what time scale he does it.
  Perhaps the Government have allowed themselves to be abused by the right hon. Member for Doncaster and slightly set their own trap. This is a wide-named Bill. It is a broad and expansive phrase. Looking at its contents reminds me rather of going into an exclusive French restaurant and ordering oeufs sur le plat Brecy, which turns out to be fried eggs, chipolatas and tomato ketchup on the top.
  I feel that the peroration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been clearly got across today. But this is a Bill which can go forward and which will form part of the Government's overall strategy. However, the powers in the Bill should not be used, certainly until the overall strategy has been seen and discussed. There has been much talk about babies and the bathwater. At the moment we have seen the baby but we have not seen the bath or the bathwater.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I have come to the conclusion that this debate has been staged as a crafty scheme by the Secretary of State to convince the Cabinet that there is no support for what is proposed in the Bill. I have yet to hear any support for the Bill—although I must offer apologies, because there was one Conservative Back Bencher who expressed some serious reservations. Practically every other speaker on the Government side has expressed alarm and despondency at the prospect that what is proposed in the Bill will be carried out.
  The shadow which overhangs this debate is the demographic pattern of youth coming on to the labour market in the present years and in the years which lie ahead. By a grotesque twist of circumstance, we have a peak of outflow of school leavers in the current years—I think that that peak is reached in 1982 or 1983—with hundreds of thousands of boys and girls flooding on to the labour market at a time when we have a Government pursuing an economic policy that is destroying the economy and destroying jobs. In any circumstances, it might have been difficult to have accommodated with useful work and training the flood of school leavers that has come in the past two or three years and will continue for a couple of years more. Given the Government's present policies, the situation has got completely out of hand.
  In a few years' time, towards the end of this decade, we shall have an exactly reverse position. When the drastic fall in the birthrate that occurred in the mid-1970s results in fewer boys and girls coming on to the labour market towards the end of this decade and the beginning of the 1990s, we shall have a totally reverse situation. There will then be a serious shortage of manpower and womanpower in Britain for some considerable time—probably till the end of the century.

  675
  What, therefore, is likely to happen unless we are very careful with our training programmes now? It is that we shall neglect a five-year cohort of boys and girls, without giving them adequate training or adequate jobs; and once neglected there is a serious danger that they will not subsequently in their adult life acquire the skills necessary both to them individually and to the nation as a whole.
  That is the most desperate and formidable problem which the country faces now in terms of the use of its human resources. If we allow these boys and girls to drift not only without jobs but without training or skill as well, we shall pay a very heavy penalty seven or eight years hence when the situation demographically, as I have explained, will go into complete reversal. Therefore, the debate on training is fundamental and very important for the economic future of Britain.
  The Secretary of State talked about a review this year. A review has taken place already and it was published last July in "Outlook on Training". The review made one or two important points. It referred to the importance of training for the unemployed and vulnerable groups. By vulnerable groups, I assume that it meant handicapped and immigrant groups. Pushing the burden of training on to employers will do nothing for such people. Employers will not provide training for the unemployed. They will not do much for the handicapped or the ethnic minorities. In that sense the Bill is misconceived.
  The review talked about promoting training at times of recession. Heaven knows, we have a recession and the Government are doing their best to make it worse. At such a time it is important to put the emphasis on training. However, the last people in time of recession to provide that training are the employers. I do not dispute that some of the more enlightened employers have the inclination, but at such a time they either do not have the resources or are not inclined to employ them. It is lunacy to propose that we should improve the training system by imposing another £50 million on employers who already bitterly complain about all the other charges that the Government keep loading on to them.
  Nevertheless, the "Outlook on Training" review was right to say that at a time of economic depression more effort should be spent on training and that we desperately need to build up our skilled manpower. The way suggested in the Bill is not the right way.
  Another suggestion in the review was that more effort should be made to provide training for expanding and new occupations. The infant industries will hardly take that on board. That takes a definite and vigorous effort by the Central Government and the community at large. Such a scheme must be funded by the taxpayer. The notion that sufficient training will occur in new and expanding industries by shifting costs away from the Exchequer to industry is nonsense. The review also said that there should be no statutory limit on the levy. The Government have ignored that proposition.
  The training of women has not received much attention. It is important in the engineering industries where for many years the training of women has been neglected. Women provide an important source of skill. We should use it and encourage women to move into the engineering industries.
  I share hon. Members' distaste for the exemption of firms in enterprise zones. I have made no secret of my views about enterprise zones. The defects of that gimmick are emphasised in the Bill.
  676
  It is hard to understand why the Secretary of State believes that he is advancing the cause of training by producing this Bill. I am driven to the conclusion that he wants to demonstrate to the Cabinet that some of his colleagues' bright ideas for reducing public expenditure will not work.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) will forgive me if I do not take up some of the points that he made. I thank the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for having kept their remarks short. As a result, you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, managed to squeeze me into the debate.
  I wish to comment in broad terms on our national training strategy—or, perhaps, the lack of it—and on other connected questions such as whether we have the best tools to ensure that our training objectives are met and where the money will come from to pay for them.
  It is widely acknowledged that our national training provision is inadequate. In a speech made a couple of years ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
  "I don't think we do anything like enough training. We're certainly not doing enough training for the jobs of tomorrow and the skills of tomorrow."
  Those are hardly the words of someone who does not believe passionately that we should improve our training effort. The Bill is designed to do that. Britain suffers from an unemployment rate of 2½ million side by side with an estimated 250,000 unfilled vacancies. There are many reasons for that, but the shortage of skilled workers must result from inadequate training provision. That in turn poses a major threat to our economic recovery.
  The problem is exacerbated by a more dynamic labour market and by far greater worker mobility. The recession is causing a major shake-out in employment. There is already evidence that jobs that are on the increase—and there are many of them—are often, but not always, in high technology industries and require the most training. Conversely, jobs in older and more traditional industries are on the decrease and require the least amount of training.
  Workers will not want to be tied to one job or to one skill for all their working lives. That is not in their interests or in those of the nation. The American Carnegie Institute estimated that the average worker in the United States of America would have eight jobs and three careers in his lifetime. In Britain, the average is two jobs and only one career. We need a far more flexible work force with a wider range of transferable skills. We also need facilities for regular up-dating. The present training system has failed to produce those results.
  Not all hon. Members agree with everything that is said in the report of the Central Policy Review Staff. Nevertheless, it puts its finger on one of the main faults in the British training system when it described the system as far too rigid, conservative and slow to respond to changing industrial needs.
  I suggest that this inflexibility may be caused, in part, by the way in which the 24 industrial training boards are organised. Each one looks after its own rather narrow industrial sector rather than taking a broader view. Certainly, the Bill would give the Secretary of State power not only to abolish industrial training boards but to create

  677
  new ones. If there were fewer boards covering a wider sector—as the Engineering Industry Training Board does—they might solve the problem of inflexibility.
  I appreciate that industrial training boards do not deliver training. Their role is to provide the keys that will open the doors. If they have failed to do so, the review of each board that is being undertaken by the MSC will identify those at fault. It is said that the prospect of execution concentrates the mind wonderfully. No doubt we can expect a flurry of verbal activity from the 24 industrial training boards in the next few months.
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) held up a great pile of papers that he had received from industrial training boards. Most of us have received the same sort of mail. However, I have yet to be inundated by correspondence, leaflets or briefings from the industrialists who provide the training or from the employees who receive it. The industrial training boards seem to be the only bodies with anything to say.
  It is, of course, right that the Secretary of State should have the powers contained in the Bill. He is ultimately responsible for seeing that our training system contributes effectively towards meeting the manpower needs of the economy. But he cannot do this alone in the Department of Employment.
  First, our training needs must be identified in detail. That will mean the closest co-operation with other Departments of State, NEDO and employers' and employees' organisations. Secondly, the Secretary of State should be able to open doors to the training facilities and resources that already abound—doors that are often closed, except to the privileged few.
  Why should we always believe that more and better training provision necessarily requires more resources and, therefore, more expenditure?
  I ask hon. Members to think of all the training resources that sit idle in their constituencies for half the day: libraries, technical colleges, polytechnics, school workshops—I do not understand why we lock up our schools so early in the day—universities, laboratories, Ministry of Defence establishments and, of course, industry.
  If we were to identify the bodies responsible for these various training resources we would find that a large proportion of them—probably most of them—came within the general area of education—both private and State—secondary, higher and further education. Therefore, local education authorities have immediate responsibility for most of those establishments.
  The Avon county council has already demonstrated how much can be done in training by co-operating with local industry and employers' organisations. Surely the Department of Education and Science is the Department most likely to succeed in gaining access to these various institutions, so that their valuable resources—usually paid for by the taxpayer—can be made available to those who need them for training purposes.
  In particular, our 33 polytechnics should have a far greater role in co-ordinating training. We have already seen what 13 of them can do in running the regional centres dealing with management training. Could they not build on that experience and widen the scope of their training activities, perhaps using the distance teaching
  678
  techniques perfected by the Open University to bring training courses within the reach of many workers currently denied them?
  With respect to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who will be winding-up the debate and whom I congratulate on his promotion to the Front Bench—I suggest that he is in the wrong Department. What we require is a department of education and training, with a Minister of State in charge of training to co-ordinate the training activities of the nation. If my hon. Friend could persuade the Government to think in such terms he might one day find himself in that Department as the Minister of State, and not only succeed in carrying out a major reform of training but get promotion at the same time.
  Until we have a department of education and training I do not think that our training needs will be satisfactorily or economically met; nor will the dreadful divide between school and work be properly bridged.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look upon his task in training not as a cost-cutting exercise but as one of a better deployment of resources and of encouragement to employers, even in these hard times of recession, to invest more in training. We have no detailed figures of what we spend on training. Estimates put the figure at about £300,000 million—about one-third of what we spend on education—and it is almost certainly less per head of the population than our main overseas competitors.
  The Tories have always made the running on training reform. The 1964 and 1973 Acts were both Conservative measures. We do not yet have it right, but this is another opportunity to improve the system. I hope that the Bill will be one important part of the process of improvement and I commend it to the House.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Tom McNally: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) let the cat out of the bag when he asked the Secretary of State not to make the Bill a cost-cutting exercise. As has become abundantly clear, that is exactly the prospect that we are facing.
  The right hon, Gentleman tried skilfully to keep the debate on a low key. It was the bland leading the bland. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) quickly tore away that mask; and from the Labour, Liberal and Conservative Benches we have had a succession of Members who have criticised the Bill, its timing and its content. I am sure that the Government Whips are perspiring as they ponder on how they will be able to put a Committee together that will live up to the speeches from Back Benchers and secure votes for the Government. I do not think that that will be possible unless many amendments are made.
  We share some common interests. We recognise that Britain and its economy needs to go up market into the higher technology high value-added industries. If we are to do that, we need investment in not only equipment and new technologies but in people. In his remarkable speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster alleged that the main thrust of the Government's policies over the next few years will be to work against those aims. Although the Secretary of State has been able to make some boasts about increases in training programmes here

  679
  and there, the catastrophic fall in apprenticeships—10,000 in the past year—is the real monument to his policies. It is that for which he has to answer.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said, over the next two or three years there will be many coming on to the labour market who will not be trained and who will probably never be trained. That is the opportunity that has been missed at a time when there is scope in the economy, given Government intervention, to work that out.
  It is said that firms should realise the need, but we forget how many apprenticeships are provided by small firms. I quote from a letter that was written on behalf of a small electronics firm in my constituency to the local district secretary of the AUEW:
  "We cannot continue to search for alternative employment indefinitely. It is quite clear that we will not have the resources to train four apprentices next year."
  As a result, four apprenticeships have become two apprenticeships. That is happening again and again at the small end of British industry. Four is becoming two and two is becoming none. This is not because the bosses are hard-hearted or do not have wide concepts of the needs of industry. The fact is that they have to cut to stay alive in the recession that the Government have created. That is the reality behind the rather bland performance of the Secretary of State.
  When the right hon. Gentleman looked around for support he found that it came only from the Centre for Policy Studies, with its fine record for progressive thinking. That is the only group that gives the Bill credibility. Even the CBI has said that the Bill will
  "add to the problem of maintaining standards and volume training."
  Apart from the right hon. Gentleman's brave attempt to keep the backwoodsmen from the best of the Government's training programme—the programme was one of the finest achievements of the previous Labour Government, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for fighting to maintain it—there has been retreat on all levels. That has happened at a time when we should have been searching for expansion. We are witnessing a catastrophic cutback in engineering apprenticeships and apprenticeships generally. Time and again it has been shown from the Conservative Benches and from everyone who has had practical experience of working in industry that the retreat back to voluntarism is a figleaf. Successive Governments have taken pride in the training programme. We are not saying that it is incapable of improvement, that it should be allowed to be frozen in aspic, but the challenge of productivity with existing equipment, the challenge of the new technology and the extra numbers coming on the work roll will not be met by the Bill. The debate has proved that if all hon. Members who have spoken had the courage of their convictions the Bill would proceed no further.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: We have had a thorough debate. Twenty-two right hon. and hon. Members have participated. I have heard most of the speeches. They have been very thoughtful.
  I begin my remarks by sincerely congratulating the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for Employment. Tonight he has made his first appearance at the Dispatch
  680
  Box as a Minister. It is an unusual coincidence that he and I should wind up the debate. Our constituencies share the walls of Chester and the banks of the River Dee. Perhaps there will not be another such coincidence in the House for some time.
  The Bill will, to varying degrees, dictate how Britain will fight back to a position of economic strength and industrial pre-eminence. The Bill, which is highly controversial, is presented against a depressing employment scene, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) was right to stress in his strong speech. There is a rapid deterioration in the labour market. The outlook for the next few years is appalling. The general consensus among economic forecasters is that unemployment will continue to rise throughout 1981 and well into 1982. Projections have shown that, without special employment programmes for the young, there will be more than 600,000 school leavers out of work in the summers of 1982 and 1983. The number of adults, who it is said, will be out of work for more than 12 months will rise from 400,000 in 1982 to 600,000 in 1983. It is easy to argue that all those estimates are far too low and that the actual figures will be much higher.
  The Secretary of State highlighted the increase in the youth opportunities programme and the increases in staffing and expenditure on them, but he has not highlighted the unjust expenditure cuts in other areas of the Manpower Services Commission's budget at a time of growing mass unemployment. We think that the Bill is a mistake, but if we view it alongside the damage that the Government are doing to employment and training services division of the MSC it can be said to be a very serious mistake. There are likely to be heavy cuts in jobcentre staffs. There are likely to be disgraceful cuts in the services for the disabled, following the International Year of Disabled People. We know that the number of ancillary staff in skillcentres will be cut and that some employment offices may have to be closed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) referred to the MSC's strategy for the next five years. If the House will not accept my gloomy assessment let it consult the pages of the MSC's corporate plan. Fortuitously, after requests, a copy was placed in the Library last week. I wish to draw attention to the Manpower Services Commission's consideration of its strategy. The commission says that it has been dominated by a number of factors, one of which is that the MSC knows of the
  "requirement to save 1,710 more staff by April 1984 and to make expenditure savings of £20 million, £30 million and £30 million over the next three years."
  The MSC states:
  "This last factor has overshadowed our discussions, we are exceedingly uneasy at having to accept major reductions in the employment and training services whose main job is to help unemployed people back to work, and sustain an adequate skill base at a time when unemployment is rising sharply. We must make it clear what these reductions mean … Expenditure reductions will be gained from the saving of staff salaries of the 1,710 posts which are to go, but beyond this we see no practicable alternative but to make major expenditure savings by cutting resources available for training and rehabilitation. This of course means fewer people trained or rehabilitated."
  That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), and it will depress at least the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). The MSC continues:

  681
  "Staff savings will hit the employment service disproportionately: this will mean a seriously reduced capacity to aid the operation of the labour market and assist unemployed people. While the Commission welcomes the Government's approval of its special programmes for unemployed people, the reductions in its employment and training services mean that the emphasis of its services to the labour market is now being altered substantially."
  The Secretary of State's speech is, in part, invalidated by what the MSC says.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) pungently outlined the reasons for our dislike of the Bill. In clause 1 the Secretary of State is ruthlessly driving towards voluntarism and aiming for vastly increased powers for himself. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) said, in a blunt and independent speech, the Secretary of State wants a big blank cheque. No one in the Opposition disagrees with that assessment.
  We ask the Under-Secretary to think hard about the decision not to allow the removal of the 1 per cent. ceiling on the levy. The cost of services and training arrangements for the 13 million people who come under the industrial training boards is £52 million a year. For all the blemishes of the ITBs they are still good value at £4 per person per year.
  Does the Under-Secretary realise that there will be troublesome consequences for industry if the Government do not relent in their obstinate determination to offload on to industry the training boards' operating costs by 1982-83 at the latest? It appears to be a rather brutal decision. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the cut-off is far too sudden. We hope that the Under-Secretary will say that there will be a longer transitional period, as the TUC has suggested, to help industry during the terrible recession that is tightening its grip on our economy. We should look for a transitional period going up to, say, 1984–85. The Under-Secretary could do far worse than read the Employment Select Committee proceedings for last Wednesday when Lord Carr and the TUC came before the Committee. Lord Carr, a former Secretary of State for Employment, warned against adding to industry's costs in the immediate future. He emphasised strongly the damaging consequences to the financial standing of industry of the overvalued pound and the very high interest rates.
  Some hon. Members have pointed out that clause 4 excludes the employer from liability to pay levy or to provide information to a board in the case of an establishment in an enterprise zone. Enterprise zones are recent. They are controversial. Why should they mean that workers cannot benefit from industrial training measures? This proposition could be described as mean and petty. It might be said to be reactionary. We fear that it is a germinal position that signposts the Government's regression eventually to the laissez-faire industrial approaches that existed before the 1964 legislation. We want to hear in detail from the Under-Secretary the thinking behind this reactionary clause.
  There are considerable employment consequences if the boards are abolished and if the Exchequer costs are returned too speedily to industry. In the paper and paper products industry it is estimated that 80 to 150 training specialists might be lost within a year—that is up to one-third of its training corps, if what we fear with regard to
  682
  the abolition of many of the boards takes place. ICI, in the last quarter of 1980, suffered a £10 million loss. Its estimated increase in levy might be projected at about £600,000 a year. To make good this contribution, it would need to discharge one-third of its industrial training officers or close a number of apprenticeship schools.
  I wish to emphasise what I believe many hon. Members would say are the achievements of the industrial training boards. They have been the vehicle for tripartite approaches to training. They have become a unique system of access to companies. In many company boardrooms, training is now discussed seriously and consistently. The training boards have set standards in certain fields of training. They have become a repository of a mass of information and expertise in industrial training. Overall, they have not been proved inefficient. Overall, they are not bureaucratic. No tangible evidence about their supposed misdemeanours has been brought before the House in this debate. I believe the whole House would agree that the industrial training boards, under the sector by sector review, must expect to have to be much more flexible and to adjust to training demands in industry.
  It is clear that the Secretary of State has pinned his colours during these last few months to a threefold objective. He wants vocational preparation for employed and unemployed 16 to 18-year-olds. He wants apprenticeship reform and adult training and retraining. If he subjects his policy to the vagaries of voluntarism he is taking a big risk with his cherished objectives. If the vocational training hopes of the Government are to be realised, even at the unambitious target level set, it will be necessary for many more employers to take on young people and to provide them with a training programme that will be considerably more ambitious than that contemplated by most employers hitherto. It was on those lines that the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), in his well-informed speech, gave a rather generous hint to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amongst other things, the measures will require a considerable input of expertise in the development of training programmes. They will require assistance to companies and the monitoring of their performance. Is it realistic to believe that a purely voluntary system will develop the stimulus to employers to reverse the current tendency to reduce the employment of unqualified young people and to increase spending in this direction? It does not appear realistic to imagine that employers will devote resources to improve their capacity to implement quality training at this level. I do not think that it is realistic to rely on a voluntary monitoring of standards.
  Apprenticeships are regarded as a vital area. Perhaps, before considering reform, we should try to ensure that minimum numbers of future craftsmen are being trained. Further, we should ask whether it is likely that voluntary arrangements will lead to an adequate supply. It does not seem so, because even now, with the Manpower Services Commission and the industrial training boards' pressures and inducements, numbers are falling.
  Indeed, employers' apprentice recruitment has declined markedly, and apprentices in various stages of training are being sacked in large numbers. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) made his points about that very effectively. He may agree with me that training, involving investment with a pay-off several years ahead, tends to be neglected, and that a voluntary system will surely do

  683
  nothing to overcome this serious problem. That was one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley.
  The subject of adult training and retraining ranges from operatives to management, and from marketing to safety. Now it is intended to open it up in an extended, more systematic and coherent way. Provisions such as the "open tech" are intended to facilitate this development. The industrial training boards' progress in this large area has been patchy in some places but it has had important successes, just as in other areas it has had its failures.
  Does the Under-Secretary think that we can contemplate with any degree of confidence the ambitious objectives now set out by the Government if their realisation depends solely on the voluntary commitment of the majority of employers? Would such a system allow us to build a national organisation through which training, experience, knowledge and expertise could be exchanged, to mutual advantage? Many of my hon. Friends ask whether there is anything in our experience in the past few decades, or more recently, to give us reason to hope that a voluntary system will deliver any more than it has in the past.
  With regard to apprenticeships, many people say that there is evidence that the Government are destroying the seedcorn. What worries me is that the past few months have seen an accelerating rush of sackings of young craftsmen and technicians in training, and that after a fall of more than 10 per cent. at the beginning of the training year compared with the previous year, this depleted source of the trained labour force of the future is now falling further to the scythe of redundancy. The investment in youngsters through one, two or even more years of training is being lost, because companies facing enormous pressures are frantically offloading their people, including many of their apprentices. In the immediate years ahead, all the signs point to a worse situation. Our experience of the decade before the 1964 Act demonstrated the futility of relying on that course, and finally persuaded the Tory Government of its futility. Another Tory Government in 1973 confirmed the necessity of statutory intervention.
  It appears that the Government are sheltering behind the sector by sector review of industrial training boards. They say "Wait and see which boards will and which boards will not be axed." Today, the Secretary of State has sought to exploit the differences of approach between the employers and others. At least his options stay open. It is not to his disadvantage that the debate has sometimes dealt with money, when it might have dealt with training. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he seeks extra powers to abolish boards without a recommendation from the MSC, and that he is doing so ahead of the review. He has effectively downgraded his 23 board chairmen—as he has downgraded his Manpower Services Commission—by ignoring their pleas against voluntary boards. He still ducks the advice of the CBI, the TUC, the board chairmen and the Opposition in terms of the timing of the transference of the operating costs of the boards to industry. Today we have had only a vague promise on timing. That promise is not good enough.
  The Secretary of State is imperilling the success of his new training initiatives for the 16 to 18-year-olds by espousing the principle of voluntarism, rather than keeping to the principle of statutory provision. Some observers believe that his crucial clause 1 provision might involve a betrayal of a new generation of school leavers. In his
  684
  drive towards voluntarism, the Secretary of State now runs counter to the determination of two previous Conservative Governments who decided to outlaw that concept. I remind him that the Prime Minister was the sponsor of the 1973 Bill.
  In effect, we are seeing the break-up of the implied bipartisan political approach to industrial training—in basic principles at least—of the 1960s and the 1970s. Industrial training is clearly at the fulcrum of Britain's belated attempts to regenerate ts ailing economy, and now, in this crucial area of economic activity, with this reckless little Bill, the Government are embarking on bitterness and controversy. The Under-Secretary of State must answer a number of questions. The House is suspicious of the indecent haste with which the Bill has been introduced. The Government aim to push this measure through before the MSC's corporate plan comes fully into the spotlight of the House.
  It is ironic that the Secretary of State, a celebrated wet, must come to the House with a £51 million public expenditure cut—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) called it—and the implied surrender of most of the statutory boards, while the greatest monetarist of all, the Secretary of State for Industry, keeps his National Enterprise Board and indulges in fortnightly rescue operations for BL and State and private steel.
  We believe strongly that a voluntary system of training boards would imperil the economic revival of our country at a time when our EEC rivals and others in the West move forward in industrial training. This Government are planning to embrace an antediluvian and discredited method.
  The Bill is the denial of the bright hopes of many of our young people. They are entitled to a better tomorrow, and some of these measures will not make that possible. We shall oppose the Bill vigorously.
  9.35 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I thank the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) for his kind congratulations, and I offer my own to him. It must be unusual for two new boys, one a Minister and the other shadowing him, to have neighbouring constituencies and to be winding up a debate on the day that they are the new boys. The difference between the hon. Member for Flint, East and me is that he has had an illustrious ministerial career, and has appeared constantly at the Dispatch Box, whereas I. four and a half years ago, took the oath of a Trappist monk: I became a Whip and, subsequent to that, the Government pairing Whip—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is unusual for a Government pairing Whip to raise a cheer. I do not think that I would have done the same a few weeks ago. However, this is my first speech in the House for four and a half years. It may be that the House will think at the end of my speech—I might even think it myself—that it would be better if I went back to my former role as a Trappist monk.
  It is ironical that as an apprentice in my new job I should be speaking about training. However, I have learned a great deal about training during the past five weeks, and I have listened carefully to all that right hon. and hon. Members have said. The backdrop to the debate has been how important training is. I think that there is no disagreement about that.

  685
  My hon. Friends the Members for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) spoke about the youth opportunities programme, as did the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Flint, East. The issue of apprenticeships, to which the hon. Member for Flint, East referred, is another matter which has been concerning us all. It was argued that we should pursue a policy of training for adults. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to this, as did a number of other hon. Members. This is especially important since, because of the pace of change occurring in industry, it is no longer likely to be the case that a person joins a job and expects to be in that sort of job for the rest of his life.
  Mr. John Evans: Certainly not under this Government.
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) asked whether we should not review completely the way in which training is done. He wanted to move away from the sector by sector basis to an area committee basis. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Although we shall look at the issue very carefully, the fact is that, if we had area committees superimposed on the present structure, they would represent yet one more board or association.
  I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) spoke about the importance of the link between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science. My right hon. and learned Friend is a very busy man. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West promoted me to the job of Minister of State in my right hon. and learned Friend's Department, so perhaps he will have an opportunity to read the report of the debate in tomorrow's Hansard.
  Turning to the aspects of the Bill which were discussed in the debate, I listened especially closely to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster said. The whole House appreciates that his knowledge of these matters is very deep and that his experience goes back over many years—and it is a many years. His knowledge and experience is very substantial and, therefore, I always pay an enormous amount of attention to what he says.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden mentioned the following point. I got the impression that the right hon. Member for Doncaster was a little wary of change. Perhaps that is not right, but that was the impression he gave. As I said to him in answer to a parliamentary question, it is surprising that he should be wary of change as a Labour Front Bencher and that I as a Conservative Front Bencher should be promoting change. Perhaps I misunderstood him.
  Last November, Len Murray said:
  "The need now is to reach agreement on a framework of a training system for all in the future, to develop a system which meets the training needs of workers, employers and the nation during a period of economic difficulty and rapid technological change".
  Therefore, Mr. Murray is in agreement with my right hon. Friend and myself, and is disagreeing to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who suggested that we were going too fast, as did other Opposition Members.
  686
  Mr. Murray realises how important it is to settle this matter, because we need the structure for the future. Opposition Members appear to say that it is not important to settle the matter. Therefore, they are continuing to promote uncertainty.
  Mr. John Evans: Surely the Minister has recognised our arguments that the Government should wait until the MSC has conducted its review, that the House should have a debate on the review and that, after that debate, legislation could be brought to the House which would be uncontroversial and accepted by both sides of the House?
  Mr. Morrison: I shall come to that point later in my speech. I am not fobbing off the question.
  I gather that the interesting thing is—admittedly the right hon. Member for Doncaster mentioned it—that the Opposition, the TUC and the Conservatives are all agreed that, at the end of the day, industry should pay for its training. The TUC said that at the Employment Select Committee last week, the right hon. Gentleman said it and we are saying it now. I accept that there is some contention as to when that should come.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) raised the theme of whether employers can afford to pay. I believe that we should consider it in this way. At the moment, 47 per cent. of employees are not covered by training boards. After the review by the Manpower Services Commission and any decision which my right hon. Friend may make, that figure may increase. If it is increased, those companies that are left within the statutory boards will have to pay for the operating costs, whereas those within the voluntary system will have to pay for something—because there will be some things on a voluntary basis—but they will not have to pay the costs as determined by the industrial training board of that sector. Therefore, the voluntary and the statutory sectors are being put at odds with each other.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) that it is likely that, where there is a voluntary board or a voluntary association, because the same form filling and bureaucracy will not exist, the operating costs are likely to be less. However, in relation to transfer costs and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston and the right hon. Member for Doncaster, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have accepted that things will be difficult for industries during the present recession. My right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to be reasonably flexible. It would therefore be unjust and wrong to say that we have not taken account of this matter.
  Many hon. Members have asked what role the training boards have played over the last 16 or 17 years. The right hon. Member for Doncaster rightly talked at some length about the Acts of 1964 and 1973. He called in evidence my noble Friend Lord Blakenham, and said that he would disagree with what we are doing. However, I think that it would be fair to say that what pertained in 1963–64 does not necessarily pertain in 1981–82. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman also said, that his noble Friend Lord Scanlon said that the training boards had played an important role.
  I accept that, as a result of the boards, some sectors have woken up to what was going on and taken remedial action, but that does not necessarily mean that they should continue for ever and a day. However, they played an

  687
  important role and I echo the thanks expressed by the Secretary of State to all those involved in their work. They have done a marvellous job over the years.
  I understand that the TUC wants the boards to continue for evermore and I accept that employers are divided. Sitting at my desk, I receive many letters—not as many as the hon. Member for Hackeney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) suggested but certainly quite a few—arguing both sides of the case. Some employers want them to go on because they regard them as of great assistance. Others want them to stop because they regard them as bureaucratic, expensive and time-consuming.
  I should not let pass the point made in the letter from the chairmen of the training boards. I should be amazed if any group whose organisation was being threatened did not write to say "We do not believe that you should get rid of us." I should be staggered if that were not so. But the chairmen are responsible to their public, to their industries, as we politicians are responsible to our electors. So we must listen not just to them but to the employers in the industries concerned. That is the reason for the review.
  I felt rather lost at one point in the speech of the right hon. Member for Doncaster. He seemed at first to be on land and then to divert to the sea. He said that everything in the garden was not rosy with training—
  Mr. Harold Walker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Morrison: That is what he said. Then he said that a touch on the tiller might be helpful. I must confess that I was a little at sea about his meaning.
  It is wrong to suggest that we are making a pre-emptive strike. We have open minds. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston asked for an undertaking that we do not have a doctrinaire approach. I can certainly give that undertaking.
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster suggested that the Government are in conflict with the MSC. I am not aware of such a conflict. I am sure that he will agree that the MSC has not come forward with any recommendations for the sector-by-sector review of whether the boards should continue. I find it surprising that he is taking that line when in Committee on 12 April 1973 he argued the opposite. I could quote what he said then, but I do not wish to bore the House. He argued that it was important that the House had powers over the MSC to take action without its recommendations. Now, eight years later, he is arguing the opposite.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Minister please quote that passage so that the House knows what I said?
  Mr. Morrison: I shall do so. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "One of the fundamental issues of the Bill is the extent to which the powers of Members of Parliament have been eroded and will be eroded in the future. It is our duty to ensure that power remains ultimately with Ministers and the vote of Parliament and subject to the pressures of Parliament. It may be that, under pressure, Parliament is compelled to make the wrong decisions, but, if they are wrong decisions as the result of democratic pressures, they are right decisions in terms of parliamentary democracy. This is the system we have developed and I am concerned that we should not hand over to agencies the kind of powers that the Minister is proposing that they should have."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 April 1973; c. 344.]
  That is the argument that I am putting forward tonight.
  Mr. Harold Walker: With respect, that is not what the Bill is saying. I argued then, and have argued since—I
  688
  have never resiled from the argument—that the MSC or any other extra-governmental agency should be accountable to the Minister, and through the Minister to the House. The power ultimately should rest with the House. The Secretary of State is now taking power to override and dismiss the views of the MSC. That is what the Bill is about. If the position were otherwise, there would be no need for the Bill.
  Mr. Morrrison: The right hon. Gentleman and I will not agree on that point. My right hon. Friend is taking powers to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wanted in 1973.
  Mr. John Golding: I want to move slightly away from that point. Surely the bone of contention for Back Benchers is that both the CBI and the TUC have said that they cannot make a firm recommendation about the Bill until the MSC has completed its inquiry. They have said that they cannot hold meaningful discussions on the principles of the Bill until the review has taken place. In that sense, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is right to say that the partners in the MSC believe that this is the wrong time to discuss the Bill, and that discussions should take place only when we are better informed.
  Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Doncaster will be grateful to his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for getting away from the point. The TUC, the CBI and any interested body, are entitled to talk to the MSC before it makes its recommendations, and also to talk to my right hon. Friend, myself or any other Minister if they so desire. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I will agree on that point.
  I turn to the question of the levy—that is, the non-clause which the right hon. Gentleman wanted included in the Bill. It is still possible, and it will remain possible, for a training board to bring a proposed increase of levy over 1 per cent. to my right hon. Friend, and it will then be subject to affirmative resolution. What the Opposition apparently want is for statutory training boards to have a blank cheque. I suggest that that, overall, is where taxpayers' money gets lost—when we give blank cheques to people.
  I come to the final and most important point of all. It has been raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The question is: can voluntarism work? I accept entirely that one cannot be utterly sure whether voluntarism can work, but, as a general rule, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the British people are far better at organising themselves than the Government are on their behalf.
  But of course, in the event of the review and of recommendations made to him, my right hon. Friend will take into account, when he decides whether a training board should continue, whether he thinks that the particular industry can continue on a voluntary basis.
  The point which hon. Members on both sides of the House are making is well registered, but overall, I think that Opposition Members simply cannot take on board the fact that voluntarism can work when, in fact, it works. I say to the right hon. Member for Doncaster that, as he well knows and knew well before me, the ITBs, when set up under the 1964 Act, were set up on the model of the

  689
  Merchant Navy Training Board—I am assured that that is correct—which has always been a totally voluntary body. So in that case it has worked, and I do not see why it should not work in the future.
  I turn finally to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He was kind enough to flatter me, because he wanted me to do something in his constituency, but then he proceeded to insult me.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Impossible.
  Mr. Morrison: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman wanted it both ways. First, he said that he wanted all small firms exempt. He said that it was monstrous that small firms were being mucked around by these training boards and that this was another of these desperate things that the Government were doing. One would have assumed from that point of view that the hon. Gentleman did not particularly like training boards. But then he said that we must keep the Cotton and Allied Textiles Training Board, which looks after a lot of small firms. So at that moment the hon. Gentleman was looking both ways.
  I accept that there is no harm in a prominent member of the Liberal Party looking both ways, but the rest of us have to look the same way.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morrison: No, I cannot give way. It is very near 10 o'clock.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the reduction in the retiring age for men, which was not particularly germane to this point. I draw his attention to the fact that the Government have the job release scheme, and with that scheme that is exactly what we have.
  Mr. Cyril Smith Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
  Mr. Morrison: Finally, the hon. Gentleman attacked enterprise zones. We shall notice in future that the Liberal Party is opposed to enterprise and enterprise zones. We shall mark it down. That is the sort of party it is.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby and vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I was trying to explain to the Minister—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 248.

  Division No.65]

  [10 pm

  Alexander,Richard

  Benyon,Thomas(A 'don)

  Amery, Rt HonJulian

  Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

  Ancram,Michael

  Berry, HonAnthony

  Arnold,Tom

  Best, Keith

  Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Biffen,Rt Hon John

  Baker,Kenneth(Sf. M'bone)

  Biggs-Davison,John

  Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)

  Blackburn, John

  Banks, Robert

  Body, Richard

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Bonsor, SirNicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Boscawen, HonRobert

  Bennett, SirFrederic(T'bay)

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wichW)

  690

  Bowden, Andrew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boyson, DrRhodes

  Hastings, Stephen

  Braine, SirBemard

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Hawkins, Paul

  Brinton, Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brittan, Leon

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Brotherton, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Hicks, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hill, James

  Burden, SirFrederick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Butcher, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

  Hooson, Tom

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hordern, Peter

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

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Churchill, W.S.

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

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

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Cockeram, Eric

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Corrie, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Cranborne, Viscount

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Critchley, Julian

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Knox, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Norman

  Dover, Denshore

  Lang, Ian

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Latham, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lee, John

  Emery, Peter

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

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

  MacGregor, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Fookes, MissJanet

  McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

  Forman, Nigel

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

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McQuarrie Albert

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Major, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  MarshallMichael(Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marten, Neil(Sanbury)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry

  Mayhew, Patrick

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

  Mellor, David

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mi I Is, lain (Meriden)

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Hector

  Hannam, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  691

  Moore, John

  Smith, Dudley

  Morgan, Geraint

  Speller, Tony

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Spence, John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Mudd, David

  Sproat, Ian

  Murphy, Christopher

  Squire, Robin

  Myles, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Needham, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Newton, Tony

  Stevens, Martin

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stokes, John

  Osborn, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Taylor, Robert(Croydon NW)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Parris, Matthew

  Tebbit, Norman

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Donald

  Pawsey, James

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Percival, Sirlan

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Trippier, David

  Porter, Barry

  Trotter, Neville

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Viggers, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Waddington, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wakeham, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wall, Patrick

  Renton, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walters, Dennis

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ward, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Watson, John

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wheeler, John

  Rost, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Whitney, Raymond

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Campbell, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Cant, R. B.

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(H'wd)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Cartwright, John

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Coleman, Donald

  Bradley, Tom

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Conlan, Bernard

  692

  Cowans, Harry

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

  Johnson, Walter(Derby S)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cunningham, G.(Islington S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kerr, Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamborn, Harry

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  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

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Dunn, James A.

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

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

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McMahon, Andrew

  English, Michael

  McNally, Thomas

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McTaggart, Robert

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Magee, Bryan

  Ewing, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Field, Frank

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Fitch, Alan

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Maxton, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Ford, Ben

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Foster, Derek

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Foulkes, George

  Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

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

  Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Freud, Clement

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morton, George

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ginsburg, David

  Newens, Stanley

  Golding, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ogden, Eric

  Graham, Ted

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Park, George

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Parker, John

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

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pendry, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Penhaligon, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Haynes, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Race, Reg

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Radice, Giles

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

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Homewood, William

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Hooley, Frank

  Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Huckfield, Les

  Robertson, George

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roper, John

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  693

  Ryman, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Stoddart, David

  Sever, John

  Stott, Roger

  Sheerman, Barry

  Strang, Gavin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Straw, Jack

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Thomas, Jeffery (Abertillery)

  Silverman, Julius

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Tilley, John

  Snape, Peter

  Tinn, James

  Soley, Clive

  Torney, Tom

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, E(Dearne V)

  694

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H(H'ton)

  Weetch, Ken

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Welsh, Michael

  Winnick, David

  White, Frank R.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Whitlock, William

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Hugh McCartney and

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

  Mr. Ron Leighton.

  Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and the Motion relating to Public Health may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Thompson.]

  WAYS AND MEANS
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964 and to provide for the retention of receipts by certain bodies, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by those bodies which they are not authorised under that Act to retain.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

  Toxic Waste Disposal
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1709), dated 30 October 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the mass meeting of speakers to leave the House so that we can hear what is happening? Perhaps they could hold their meeting outside.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It would be convenient for those who want to hear the right hon. Gentleman if conversations could be continued elsewhere.
  Mr. Howell: It is difficult to overstate the importance of this subject. For about 10 years there has been mounting concern about the dangers of toxic waste. Deaths have. occurred, communities have felt threatened and public anxiety has forced Government to act. As a result, Parliament has imposed a system of rigid controls, which have proved to be successful and in which the public have confidence.
  Why is all that to be put at risk by the new regulations? Who is the genius who says "We have a system that is working well, so we shall change it"? The local authorities do not take that view. With almost unprecedented unanimity they have condemned the proposals as dangerous and unworkable—and they are the ones who have to try to work them.
  It seems that the pressure has come from the CBI. I am sorry about that, because when I was the Minister responsible for these matters I worked closely with CBI advisers. However, the CBI has persuaded the Government that the new system will produce a saving in paper work and administration, although many in the trade and most local authorities do not agree with that. In my judgment, when dealing with poisonous wastes the last of all considerations should be savings in administration and paperwork.
  Our assessment is that Environment Ministers have surrendered to Industry Ministers. They have abandoned
  696
  their responsibility for care of the environment. They are proposing a system that is unworkable in practice. For example, staff of the highest qualifications will be necessary, and such persons are not available. The criteria imposed in these regulations by which danger is to be measured are so ludicrous as almost to bring the Government in contempt.
  The history of these matters in recent years resulted in emergency legislation being rushed through the House with the agreement of both sides of the House. That resulted in the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972. That legislation followed the irresponsible behaviour of some cowboys in industry in dumping toxic waste without permission and without regard to public safety. On that occasion the House acted with commendable urgency. We recall the incidents that led to that decision, especially the problems at the Nuneaton tip, where dumping was taking place.
  It is interesting to note that in 1972 the Royal Commission on pollution was consulted. It regarded the matter as so urgent that it advised the Government of the day that it was proposing to bring out its proposals in 1974 but felt that the issue was so urgent that it could not wait until 1974, and advised the Government to act. So indecent has been the speed with which the Government want to get the regulations on the statute book that on this occasion the Royal Commission has not been consulted.
  Mr. Ted Graham: Shame.
  Mr. Howell: That gives us a measure of the seriousness of the proposals that are under consideration. Under the 1972 Act the quantity or concentration of waste that might constitute a serious hazard to life, health or the environment was controlled. Waste disposal authorities had the power to decide whether such a hazard existed. It worked through a system of notification. First, there was notification to the authority where the waste arose. Secondly, there was notification to the waste and water authorities where the waste was disposed of. Thirdly, there was notification to those finally responsible within the trade for the disposing of the waste. All these notifications had to be made—that is still the requirement—in advance of any movement of waste from one area to another.
  The Government are proposing to change that situation, which has given the public a degree of comfort and relief that toxic waste problems are now under control.
  In 1974 it was my responsibility to pilot the Control of Pollution Act through the House. I regret to say that that Act has still not yet been fully implemented. Under section 2 waste disposal authorities are required to survey and draw up a plan for the disposal of toxic waste. I am sorry to say that those proposals are to be undermined by the Local Government Act 1980 and by the new regulations. Most local authorities have not completed their surveys for the disposal of toxic wastes. Indeed, some have not begun. The requirement to survey and produce a waste disposal plan is jeopardised by the present proposals.
  Furthermore, the EEC attaches enormous importance to the matter. I shall return to that later, because, as the responsible Minister, I had to attend meeting after meeting in Brussels to reach agreement. There was unanimous agreement among member countries about the way in which toxic wastes should be disposed of and what rigid control there should be.
  It is not surprising that local authorities that have been advising hon. Members about the regulations are totally

  697
  and unitedly expressing grave concern about the effects of the proposals. First, they say that any savings on paperwork that the Government are seeking to achieve will be offset many times over by the costs of the toxicological expertise that will be required when the authorities have to dispose of wastes. Furthermore, quite apart from the costs of such experts, they tell us thaat the experts do not exist in sufficient numbers to advise local authorities of the seriousness of the proposals before them.
  Local authorities also tell us that under the regulations the disposal authoritiy for an area where the waste is produced is given the responsibility to ensure that the new consignment note procedure operates correctly. But the local authority where the waste arises is no longer entitled to receive prior notificaton of the dispatch of waste from its own area to another area. How daft can such a procedure become, if that local authority has the responsibility without the knowledge with which to operate that responsibility?
  Many examples have been given to Ministers and hon. Members about the risks that will be involved under the new procedures. Between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the toxic wastes that are now rightly controlled will be excluded from specific control. That is the measure of the risk to which the country is being put by the regulations.
  We have been given many examples. Mercury waste—which is responsible for causing a serious disease in Japan— will be outside the scope of the regulations. Sludges from the chlor-alkali industry, the nature of which can be changed, by the presence of bacteria, into methyl mercury, will also cease to be within the scope of the regulations. Bog ore, which emanates from old gas works and which deteriorates in rain, sterilising the ground around it and, even worse, producing acid leachate, which kills all known stream life, is another hazard that we face as a result of the regulations. A relatively dilute acid combined with a sulphide can produce a lethal chemical—hydrogen sulphide—which the House may recall was responsible for killing a tanker driver at an Essex pit.
  Three months ago, when a Department of the Environment spokesman addressed a West Midlands business men's seminar, the West Midlands county council, the responsible authority, wished to attend, but was not invited to do so. The responsible chief officer of the authority still does not know whether some of the constituent elements about which he is worried are included or excluded.
  The Greater London Council has drawn attention to three dangers. Lithium batteries, which are small batteries, are excluded from control by the regulations. They will not be in the special waste category, but when water is applied to those batteries they can become a fire risk. One can imagine the hazards that will be created if such batteries are dumped.
  Sodium street lamps have to be disposed of by many local authorities. They can be dangerous when smashed, unless disposal is well supervised. Yet they are also excluded. The GLC has also told us of its considerable concern about quantities of mixtures of oil and water.
  It is no wonder that every professional organisation, including the Institute of Municipal Engineers, the Institue of Solid Waste Management and the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, and environmental
  698
  organisations such as Friends of the Earth, either oppose or have strong reservations about the regulations. In addition, every local authority in the country opposes the regulations.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: The Minister is laughing.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Howell: It would be better if the regulations were withdrawn, so that the Government could have further consultations.
  I received today a statement by the clerk of the Derbyshire county council about the effects of the regulations. He says:
  "The likely result will be that poisonous or polluting waste will be illegally deposited at more sites within the county and site operators facing a lesser risk of prosecution."
  The House cannot possibly view that situation with equanimity.
  One of the most respected waste disposal officers in the country, the officer of the West Midlands county council, has said that if the regulations are applied unamended:
  "We shall all wait for the first disaster."
  If such a disaster occurs after years when we thought we had the situation under control, the Government will carry a heavy responsibility.
  I turn to the care of the environment, which is a matter of great concern. Throughout my time as the responsible Minister in the Department of the Environment we had two priorities—protection of health and protection of the environment. The EEC regulation to which we are committed embodies them both. It says:
  "the essential objective of all provisions relating to the disposal of toxic or dangerous waste must be the protection of human health and safeguarding the environment against harmful effects."
  Under the regulations all that has gone. It is not defined. Instead, there is a new test, with which I shall deal in a moment, about danger to life. That is a less onerous test and a less desirable objective than is contained in the EEC regulation.
  Sixty per cent. of all the hazardous wastes no longer need to be notified. Regional water authorities do not have to be notified at all. The Government are relying upon a system not contained in the statute by which regional water authorities think that they will have sufficient information to carry out their duties. In the view of many of us, that is not adequate. Before waste arises at an industrial concern and is taken away by transporters, every local authority concerned and each regional water authority should be specifically notified. Through those means there should be a cast-iron guarantee to the public.
  The EEC directive deals with toxic and dangerous wastes by reference to risk to health or to the environment. I signed that regulation on behalf of the House, without opposition, when reporting back on the negotiations, in the certainty that risk to health and risk to the environment should be equal in importance. I would go so far as to say that it is my belief that these regulations are not valid under European law.
  I would like to hear from the Minister what action he feels will be taken by the Commission which was so jealous that the EEC regulation should be watertight and should safeguard the public. That is another ground on which the House should reject the regulations that we are discussing. If that does not happen, I hope that the

  699
  Commission will take note of these proposals and apply to them the tests that it had in mind when framing its own regulations.
  I turn to the question of special wastes. These fall into three categories. They are the centre-piece of the Government's proposals. They deal with wastes that are highly flammable. They deal with restricted medicines. They deal, most importantly, because it is a new definition, with wastes that are a danger to life. After 25 years' membership of the House I find in these regulations a definition and a proposal that are the most incredible I have seen used by any Government in legislation.
  The definition of danger to life will be to show that
  "a single dose of not more than five cubic centimetres would be likely to cause death or serious damage to tissue if ingested by a child of 20 kilograms' body weight or …exposure to it for fifteen minutes or less would be likely to cause serious damage to human tissue by inhalation, skin contact or eye contact."
  When I contemplate that definition in a statute or regulation to become law in this country, I ask "Have Ministers gone mad?" What other explanation can exist for such a ludicrous proposal? In case hon. Members need further elucidation of what this means, I refer to the remarks of the Earl of Avon, the Government spokesman in the House of Lords, who said that he wanted to simplify matters. He said:
  "A standard body weight of 20 kilogrammes, equivalent to a four to five year old child, is prescribed simply to enable the conversion of published toxicity data normally expressed in terms of a weight of toxic substance per unit body weight to an actual weight of substance."
  He added, in case anyone was still befuddled:
  "So this is something which when we produce our explanatory papers is meant to simplify things and not to complicate matters."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1981; Vol. 416, c. 327.]
  Ministers have taken leave of their senses.
  I do not know what the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services is saying to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I took the precaution of reading the Official Report of our debate in 1972, when the right hon. Gentleman made a most penetrating comment about the need to safeguard the country. How he, having made that comment, can produce these regulations defies all logical examination.
  When some of us had responsibility a year or two ago, I cannot believe that if any of our officials had produced this sort of mumbo-jumbo he would have had time to sit in front of our desks before being shown the door. Such definitions not only defy logic; they are almost an insult to the intelligence of the House.
  Are local authority inspectors, who have to decide the matter, to go round the country weighing sample children of the ages of 4 and 5? Are they expected to assess the likely effect of 5cm of toxic waste upon such children? Worse, having done so, are they expected to persuade a disturbed and anxious public that a child weighing 1 kg more, or swallowing only lcm of toxic waste less, is a reasonable risk compared with the definition of risk in the regulations?
  I am pleased that the new Under-Secretary is to respond to the debate, because he is the only Minister in the Department who is not tainted by the regulations and has had no responsibility for drawing them up. Since he is an agreeable gentleman, one can hope that he at least will see the logic of the concern throughout the land and agree that the House should not support the regulations, and that they should be revised.
  Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend has described the regulations as mumbo-jumbo. Do they not mean that somebody, under the direction of Ministers in the Department, has worked out the cost of a human life? This is all tied up with money; waste disposal is a profitable business. Somebody has worked out in terms of a 4-year-old or 5-year-old child what amount of a substance is required, so that someone can make a quick buck. That is what it is all about.
  Mr. Howell: I would not go as far as my hon. Friend, but clearly some scientists, somewhere, must have done some experiments with animals—rats or rabbits—in order to reach conclusions that they then tried to translate in terms of the human physiology of children aged 4 or 5. That is an offensive concept to anyone who cares about the principles involved.
  I have not found one inspector in any local authority anywhere in the country who is prepared to accept the responsibility imposed upon him by the regulations. The House would be doing its duty if it strangled the regulations tonight, not least because of the unacceptably restricted definition of "special waste" in part I of schedule 1. Under that schedule it is not sufficient for a waste to be "special". It also has to be "dangerous to life".
  I cannot understand how any hon. Member can possibly vote for such a proposition. On what scientific evidence has it been produced? How many experiments, on what animals, have been conducted in order to reach those conclusions, and how have they been translated to human life?
  These regulations are grossly offensive and highly dangerous. They remove safeguards that have worked remarkably well. They replace them with mumbo-jumbo and with a set of regulations that every local authority says cannot be enforced.[Interruption.] If Ministers do not agree, why have they not met the representatives of local authorities? All the local authority associations tell us that their members are wholly and unitedly with them in condemning these regulations. [HON. MEMBERS:"A minority."] No doubt the Minister will tell us which local authorities form the minority, and no doubt he will say why his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services adopted one standard for the protection of the public when he was on the Back Benches and why now that he is the Minister responsible he is adopting a lesser standard.
  These regulations cannot be enforced. They are contrary to the EEC directives, and in the interest of the nation I ask the House to join us in voting against them.
  10.47 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House has listened with commendable patience to the tirade of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) on these regulations. He has the qualification to speak on these matters, not only as the Minister responsible when his party was in Government, but also as the Minister responsible for the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We are now considering the implementation of section 17 of that Act. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad that we have taken his Act to heart and that we are proposing to implement section 17 of it in the manner that he laid down as being suitable and sensible in relation to the control of toxic waste.

  701
  But the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is honourable in all things—is not right in all things. He suggested that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was not consulted. It was. He suggested that mercury was a substantial hazard, and he referred to the Japanese disaster. That is not so, because the mercury derivative here is not the same as that which caused the disaster in Japan. He suggested that there was no control over the transportation from the point of origin to the point of disposal when of course there is. The regulations ensure that. He suggested that no information could be given to the disposal authority in the area where the waste occurred. That can and has been done for a considerable time. There was not very much that the right hon. Gentleman could find in these regulations which provided him with enough solid fact, although much fiction was displayed.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a point, which I concede immediately, in that any matter concerning the disposal of toxic waste should be taken extremely seriously. That is why there have been consultations over three years with those who are involved, not only in the manufacture of substances, but also in the disposal of substances. I deeply regret that in relation to the Association of County Councils and others there has not been complete agreement on the way in which the regulations are to be implemented.
  However, some authorities have found them perfectly acceptable. The county of Suffolk, which has examined them in detail, found that it was easily able to define the 39 wastes which were required. The head of the planning department of the county of Leicestershire, the responsible department of that county, found them perfectly acceptable, and the county dissociated itself from what the Association of County Councils said. I accept that there is disagreement between members of the Association of County Councils, and certainly there is disagreement between the Government and the association about what we propose. But I shall indicate the extent to which consultations have taken place, including recent consultations, and the extent to which the Government will be prepared to meet the anxieties which the ACC has expressed.
  Quite rightly, the question of where these regulations fit in has to be looked at in the context of the legislation of the period. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, that his Control of Pollution Act 1974 was rightly a replacement for the measure in 1972 which was rushed through this House to deal with the deposit of poisonous wastes. That Act made it an offence to deposit poisonous, noxious or polluting waste on land in such a way as to cause an environmental hazard. In other words, the 1972 Act attempted to determine what would be a threat to public health, animals, vegetation or water. It also made it an offence not to notify local authorities and the water authorities of the intention to dispose of a notifiable waste. It defined notifiable wastes by listing those wastes which were not notifiable, subject to certain qualifications.
  The 1972 Act had many grave omissions. For example, it did not provide controls over the disposal of notifiable wastes. By that I mean that it did not empower local authorities to prevent the waste from going into a site for disposal even if they did not wish it to go and even if they had been notified of the intention. They could seek to
  702
  persuade the site operator not to accept it, but site operators did not have to take notice of what the local authorities said. The local authority could therefore mount the prosecution only in very exceptional cases, and it was extremely hard to prove liability under this system. In effect, authorities could not even shut the door after the horse had bolted. What they could do was punish the horse if they caught it. It is not surprising that in 1978, for example, there were only three prosecutions under the Act.
  In addition, the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act did not create an efficient administrative system. Quite the reverse was the case. There must be several hundreds of thousands of paper copies of notifications in circulation each year in England alone.
  Thirdly, the Act did not control the transport of dangerous waste from the producer to the disposal site—a point which the right hon. Gentleman believed, I suspect, was controlled by the 1972 Act. In fact, it was not. What is more, the Act did not provide for a clear, accurate set of descriptions for each waste that was notified. Vague terms such as "petro-chemical processing waste", and so on, were used which were not good enough as an instrument of control.
  Although there was a minimum period for advance notice of the intention to deposit, there was no maximum in the Act. Again, this was not sufficient for adequate control.
  We have to conclude that the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act was, as it was designed to be, a stop-gap measure, and it has now outlived its usefulness. This is now the time to replace, in this section of the Control of Pollution Act, for which the right hon. Gentleman rightly takes some credit, the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 and issue new regulations which are more in keeping with it.
  Part I of the Control of Pollution Act was enacted in 1974. In 1976 came the regulations under it which introduced the site licensing system. That system, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, has a very important part to play. Frequently, the right hon. Gentleman laid stress on transportation or on the point of origin. But the control of the licensing of sites is fundamental to a policy which attempts to control the disposal of toxic or noxious wastes for the benefit of humanity and the environment.
  The system introduced in the Control of Pollution Act provided proper, positive—and not negative—controls over disposal. It was a preventive measure of the kind that was needed. Commercial, industrial or domestic wastes—called controlled wastes under this Act—whether notifiable or not, can now be disposed of only at a site which is licensed for the purpose, and in accordance with the conditions of the licence. Before a licence application can be considered, planning permission must be obtained. Hon. Members should note that at both stages the water authorities are consulted.
  This is the right sort of control—it covers the disposal of all wastes. It enables local authorities to specify precise and stringent conditions for the disposal of all hazardous wastes or to ban them from a site. As would be expected, therefore, most of the licences for sites which take "notifiable" wastes—the terminology under the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act—specify the individual wastes

  703
  which may be taken at the site. All licences or conditions for local authorities' sites cover the manner of disposal, site operation and supervision.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister is right to suggest the importance of registration and supervision of sites. Is it not clear that under the Government's proposals local authorities will be unable properly to monitor and control those sites unless theres is 24-hour supervision? No local authority can provide such supervision at the moment.
  Mr. Shaw: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The main control that local authorities should apply is on licensing sites and on making sure that licensed sites are properly run and effectively managed.
  One of the problems with the Control of Pollution Act and with its predecessor, the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, is that too much local authority time has been involved in administration and too little in site inspection, at the place where wastes are disposed of, where it really matters. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that under the regulations proposed there will be more rather than less time available for local authorities to control and inspect sites. Therefore, that is part of the reason why we are making a significant improvement in offering the regulations for approval by the House.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Minister is so concerned about trying to keep up to date with the various toxic wastes that are coming on stream, and since he wants to streamline the procedures, does he think it wise to extend the powers of consultation as far down as parish councils? By and large, in many rural areas the people who live in the parishes have to suffer from the waste deposited. Since he is so concerned about trying to keep up with these, what is his opinion on the following matter? In 1968, deadly dioxin was dumped secretly at a parish near one of the parishes in my Bolsover constituency as a result of an explosion at the Bolsover Coalite factory. Should not permission be given to ensure that it is put in a much safer place? If the Minister is so concerned about improving things, why does he not include that? Amongst the planning authorities that the Minister did not mention was the Tory-controlled Derbyshire county council, which sent me a letter saying that the benefits of that proposal would be that the waste disposal industry would have its paper work reduced.
  Mr. Shaw: I am a believer in answering a question that is put to me, if I can.
  Therefore, I inform the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that we are improving local authority control over disposal sites. When we consider the question of the 1968 dioxin waste which was buried at Morton in Derbyshire, I accept that that was a problem. Local rumour has it that the material was buried at an open cast site at Morton. The pollution incident at an adjacent toxic disposal site some years later reawakened local fears. The hon. Gentleman was active in trying to find out more about that incident. He would know—and I trust that he accepts —that the Severn-Trent water authority has advised in the past that neither the deposits of contaminated material nor the continued operation of the Morton site presents any threat of pollution to water sites in the area. The Derbyshire county council has been told in confidence by the company where that site is. I also understand that a local councillor has recently made public the location.
  704
  I return to the major matter under discussion. The new system is designed to repair some of the deficiencies in the present system, the main deficiency of which is the lack of proper control over the carriage of hazardous waste. The right hon. Member for Small Heath was wrong when he suggested that under the present system we have proper control over such carriage. The wastes are carefully controlled at the producers' premises by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Disposal is covered by that Act and by site licensing. But there is currently no system to pin the responsibility for misuse of the really dangerous wastes in transit, or for heedless disposal into the environment at each stage of its journey from producer to disposer.
  The Government fully accept the grave risk which can and, I assume, must be run in relation to "cowboy" disposers—those who seek to evade all possible regulations, who go out in the middle of the night with a load of toxic substances and dump them at an unknown place. These are the cowboys of the night whom the right hon. Gentleman and we equally seek to catch. But with this system of control in transit of really dangerous wastes from the point of production to the point of disposal, we have gone a long way to trying to prevent illicit distribution. The consignment note system will provide that control.
  The new regulations also require proper registers of consignments. Most important also is the requirement that a record of the location of the disposal of special waste is kept—and kept in perpetuity. Hon. Members can rest assured that sites will be registered and that that register will be kept up to date. That is essential, so that sites can be properly and swiftly reclaimed and put to appropriate use later.
  The Secretary of State will have some emergency powers. They are likely to be rarely used and include a provision for prior consultation.
  The regulations will also complete compliance with the EEC directive on toxic and dangerous wastes. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the regulations would be completely anathema to the European directive. That is not the case. They are complementary and comply with it.
  What do we lose with the repeal of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act? We dispense, certainly, with the requirement that notifications about the less troublesome wastes, which do not cause the bother, should go to local authorities. I have explained that they will be undertaken at a site licensed for the purpose and with conditions approprate to the circumstances. Because the definition of "notifiable waste" disappears with the Act, it is to be replaced with criteria which will specify which wastes really are a hazard. It is those wastes which need the consignment note system to cover their transit.
  The criteria for the new control, which the right hon. Gentleman and others criticised for their complex appearance, follow a logical progression. I shall not give the House a lecture in toxicology, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to do, but they set out a series of tests which are easily applied one by one. If a waste fails any of these tests—for example, if it is flammable at 21 degrees Centigrade—it simply becomes a special waste, and the regulations will apply.
  The Institute of Solid Waste Management, whose membership includes many of the waste disposal officers, the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors and industrial firms are among those who have seen the

  705
  bulk of the Department's guidance and tested the approach. They are satisfied that it is workable and in the main they are keen to get the system into operation and iron out any difficulties in practice.
  One county council—Suffolk—as I said, told the Department that it applied the approach to 40 different kinds of waste that it encountered and 39 of them represented no problem. But if experience shows that the definition needs altering, we shall alter it. I am confident that, as it stands, it does not increase risk in any significant area.
  This has been an important development so far. The pattern of co-operation is one on which we shall continue to build. There is an invaluable pool of experience—it is time to capitalise on it—between waste producers, waste disposal authorities and the local authorities at either end of the chain. If there is any doubt about the status of the waste, it should be treated as a special waste until that doubt is removed.
  What is the sum of the loss for these gains? Certainly, many paper notifications which are of no practical use will go. That will save authorities and industry time and money. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, those controls do not improve one whit the powers of waste disposal authorities over the carriage or transport of waste or over its disposal. They have operated reasonably well because of co-operation among all involved. That cooperation will remain.
  I turn to the question of the Association of County Councils, and our consultations with it. As I have indicated, consultation has been extensive for a long period. The local authority associations were involved in that, as were the industrial interests—industry generally through the CBI, major generators of special wastes through the Chemical Industries Association, the waste disposal industry itself, and many others. All are agreed on the objectives. Although we have not been able to meet every point made, we have not proceeded in isolation. We have struck a good balance between the views. The test of practice is needed now.
  Several of my hon. Friends have written to me about the issues raised by the ACC. I am in no doubt about the strength of its concern. I have replied, I think, to most hon. Members and explained that I have given assurances and undertakings on two of the three points the ACC has itself identified as crucial. I have discussed them informally with the ACC. I have not been able to meet its points completely, and it has felt unable to modify its position. Contact will, of course, continue. But I must make it clear to the House now that the Government cannot agree that points which cannot be properly resolved without the benefit of operating experience should be allowed to delay the introduction of the important improvements these regulations will bring.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your role as the protector of Back Bench rights, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see what can be done about the ridiculous state of affairs in this debate. We are debating regulations that are lengthier than many Bills. They are highly important, and concern every person in the country. At least 13 Back Bench Members are waiting to speak, with 29 minutes of the debate remaining. May I urge you to use your power
  706
  or influence to persuade the Government to withdraw the regulations, especially as the implementation date is only a month ahead, until adequate time can be arranged to debate the issue? More hon. Members wish to speak in this debate than is usual on the Second Readings of major Bills.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The House will have noticed that this is a motion to revoke regulations, not to annul them, because the time for doing so has expired. The only reason why the House is able to discuss the matter tonight is that the business motion lays down that the matter may be proceeded with until 11.30 pm. The Chair has no discretion in that matter. If nothing has been moved by 11.30 pm, the motion lapses. If, before 11.30 pm, anyone moves that the Question be put, I shall put the Question. I cannot extend any time for discussion because the business motion permits discussion only until 11.30 pm.
  Mr. Shaw: In deference to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), I shall seek to draw my remarks to a speedy conclusion. I want to stress that the discussions with the ACC are of crucial importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The local authorities put three crucial points to me. They want the Department to provide expert witnesses in court when they mount a prosecution. I said that if such experts were not available elsewhere, the Department would provide them, or put them in touch with an appropriate source. They asked that the regulations should specify that the burden of proof that a waste was not special was on the producer. The initial responsibility for complying with the regulations and deciding whether a consignment note is needed is indeed on the producer. If there is a problem—and we shall discover that during the course of the regulations—I shall be willing to consider any proposal that the local authority associatons wish to put to me for an alternative method to regulate that point. They asked for prenotification—advance warning—for authorities for the area where the waste is produced on a par with authorities for the area where the waste is to be disposed of. The authorities won a substantial concession against the views of industry on the latter point early on in the consultation process. I have taken what I believe is the fairest approach on that point. Interests conflict, and I am not persuaded that additional prenotification is required. But again if, after a period, it can be shown that the regulations are deficient on that point, I shall be happy to amend them. I also pledged a formal review after 12 months of operation. That will be the correct time for it to be evaluated, and all concerned will have had their minds concentrated on that review from day one.
  That is the way in which I have sought to meet the opposition of the ACC. I deeply regret that I have not been able to satisfy it, but it is certainly not for want of trying. It offers an opportunity to review the regulations in action, which is the only satisfactory way to eliminate not points of principle or major disagreements about what the regulations are intended to do, but significant disagreements on some practical aspects of the chain of command from waste producer to waste disposer. There is no major difference on the principle of what these regulations seek to do. They seek to implement section 17 of the Control of Pollution Act, which replaces the previous Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972. By moving in this direction,

  707
  we move not for less control but for more. We move not for more hazard but for less. I confidently recommend these regulations to the House.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: My advice to the new Minister—whom I welcome to his post, having undertaken a number of late-night debates in the same capacity—is to take these regulations back, and certainly to get rid of the date of 16 March, which is there only because it happens to be the anniversary of the passing of the EEC directive. In the meantime, he should go to places such as Pitsea, in Essex, or to Greater Manchester, or the West Midlands and the other areas concerned and look at the subject for himself.
  At the weekend I talked to the Greater Manchester official who has responsibility for this matter. Greater Manchester had not received any correspondence direct from the Minister. I know that the Minister will say that we must deal with this prayer first, but the regulations have been made and authorities ought to have received a direct communication from the Department. They have had none. There are no stocks of the consignment notes, and so on, which will have to be ordered within the next few weeks. The register of toxic effects of chemical substances is only just available, and the local authorities do not have it. It will be their Bible in dealing with these matters.
  There have been no meetings of officials of the authorities to discuss how they will implement the regulations, and yet they must come into effect on 16 March. The Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, whether or not it was rushed through, has dealt with this problem adequately, but it will cease to have effect as from 16 March.
  The Government are making a serious mistake. They have not thought about the practical proposition. They talk about field work. What will happen in practice is that local authorities will be expected to get rid of highly qualified people and leave the matter to people on site who do not have the right qualifications. All that the Government are concerned about is complying with the wishes of the Community and cutting local authority costs. I am afraid that what will happen, whether or not the Minister likes it, is that the cowboys will have a field day.
  There is no mention of the problem in the metropolitan areas in particular, where the disposal authorities are not the same as the collection authorities. There can be significant problems about that, as there have been already.
  There are provisions in the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act which are not covered in these regulations. Some have been taken out. There is the question of hazardous waste transferred from one authority to another. The authority in whose area the waste arises is responsible for the supervision, but some of the waste is transferred from Manchester, for instance, to Essex. Hon. Members from Essex do not think much of that idea, but this happens. How will Greater Manchester supervise this? There needs to be provision for the receiving local authority to let that local authority know that it has had that waste and that it has been disposed of. Much firmer direction is needed.
  As for the definition, the matter of the 5 cc has already been raised. What happens if that 5 cc is in a waste of another kind? That frequently happens. Waste is not always segregated. Does it have to be segregated?
  708
  The real need—this is where the Government are defeating their own objective—is for adequate local authority staffing. By their policies the Government are destroying the adequate staffing that exists in many cases.
  Dr. McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the case of my own constituency, where there are five pits for the disposal of toxic waste—for Thurrock takes in, together with the Pitsea pit, 100 per cent. of the toxic waste from South-East England—supervision of the site, to take an example of which the Minister made great play, would have to consist of 24-hour supervision of five sites, and supervision of transit to the sixth site on the borders of my constituency? Does he agree that the Government should put their money where their mouth is and make the money available for the kind of inspectorate that would be required to supervise both transport and the deposit of such waste?
  Mr. Marks: My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth, but I shall still say the words. The Government's policy of a 6 per cent. pay increase when pay inflation is running at 15 per cent. will make the regulations almost impossible to work.
  Let us consider a metropolitan council with a possible 6·per cent. pay rise. The firemen, rightly, have been granted an 18·8 per cent. rise. The other employees include the police, administrators and waste disposal staff. Firemen and waste disposal employees form the major part of such staffs. Highly qualified people will be poached from the local authorities by industry.
  The Government's policy on local authority cuts, staff and pay will make nonsense of what they are trying to do. The Government have already abolished the waste management committee and the anti-waste campaign. The order is another example of the Government's ineptitude and lack of care for the country's environment.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I shall be as brief as possible. I am no expert on toxicology and I should not have intervened in such a debate as this except to give a general welcome to developments in the modernisation of the disposal of waste, particularly of dangerous waste. I took the precaution of speaking to one of our premier authorities, the public analyst and scientific adviser to the Hampshire county council. He has an international reputation. I asked him why there was such criticism of the regulations, not only from the county councils but from the municipal authorities and the GLC.
  I shall confine myself to a narrow range of points, which that gentleman explained to me. He said that he would welcome a harmonisation of our regulations with EEC regulations. Yet he said that the odd test of toxicity related to a 20 kg child had nothing to do with European regulations. It is not recognised in the EEC, and it takes us away from the expertise in the EEC and this country which is related to danger to health and to the environment. The analyst said that under the regulations the task of supervision would be so complicated that it would not be possible for the local authorities to maintain the necessary number of toxicologists, because of the limited supply, which is not always available to local authorities.
  He said that local authorities could not turn to tables of toxicity for particular chemicals in relation to a child

  709
  weighing 20 kg. As he said, the information about humans has been gathered over a period. Only some of it relates to children. One cannot assume that toxicity is related directly to body weight. It is not proportionate to body weight. One cannot simply look at information for a human being of a different size and divide by the weight.
  It is also pointed out that a great deal depends on the state of health and physical condition of the child, and on the way in which the substance and the child are brought together. I could list many criticisms, but time does not permit me to do so. It is not recognised that children and others will not be faced with the toxicity of only one dangerous waste product. In most disposal sites there will be more than one item of waste, each of which may be dangerous. A combination may reduce the danger, but, on the other hand, two substances that are not toxic to the levels mentioned in these regulations may, in combination, easily become so.
  The number of possible combinations of toxic wastes is almost infinite. I make a straightforward statement to the Minister. It is impossible for the scientific adviser to the Hampshire county council to say that he can carry out these regulations in a way that is safe. He asked me to use the word "alarm". When a scientist uses such a word we should take the greatest notice of what he has to say. I am extremely worried about that part of the regulations. I trust that the Minister will recognise that this strength of feeling is experienced not merely by politicians, but by the scientific community.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: We look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) in the Lobby with us tonight. To many of us, the Government's response to this issue is a touchstone of their attitude to the environment in general. Given what we have heard tonight, and other actions, such as the abolition of the Waste Management Advisory Council, it is hardly surprising that the Government have had such a bad press in environmental circles.
  The Minister began on a bad point. The hon. Gentleman said that two local authorities—Leicester and Suffolk—were in favour of the proposals. That is complacent. He knows that there has been almost universal condemnation of the proposals by those that have been asked to enforce them. He said that further consultation with authorities could take place, but he knows that such a statement is hardly meaningful. The Government have a self-imposed timetable. How meaningful can such consultations be if they are to take place between now and 16 March?
  The Minister claims that he has met the Association of County Councils on a number of points. However, if he looks through its briefings—which I largely adopt—he will see that there are at least nine key points at the end that the Minister has failed to satisfy. Given the time, I shall adopt a fairly narrow approach and mention only three points that are of particular concern to Wales. They have been underlined by Baroness White in the other place.
  First, Wales has its own problems. For administrative reasons, the ACC represents 39 large shire counties in England, but responsibility for waste disposal in Wales rests with 37 district authorities that are smaller and that
  710
  have few resources in terms of manpower and finance. None of those authorities employs toxicologists. They firmly said that they could not, under these regulations, control waste in a safe, effective or economical manner.
  Secondly, the Government and Whitehall appear not to have considered the peculiar topographical problems of areas such as Wales, where there is greater danger of leaching into aquifers. A quarry in my area of Cwmrhydceirw is used for dumping. Today, my environmental health officer told me that they do not know where the standing water drains to. The poisonous waste that might emerge could be dangerous.
  Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has mentioned the narrow definition of toxicity and the possible danger to the life of a 20 kg child. Scientists are very uncertain about this definition. It ignores the cumulative effect of small doses and has particular relevance to the older industrial areas, where toxic material may have accumulated over a period of time. For example, in the lower Swansea valley—the classic area for waste zinc and copper—where surveys have been sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation, it is clear that local children are already at risk from a variety of sources. These regulations can only add to the danger.
  It is an uncertain area—an area of unknowns. I commend to the Minister the book that was published as a result of the conference last May, sponsored by the Nuffield project, on this older industrial area, because it shows the uncertain state of scientific knowledge in this sphere. For example, there is uncertainty on the question of how long poisonous substances remain in the soil, and the difficulties of separating dangerous substances from the new topsoil.
  Finally, and more important in terms of the expenditure of time on money, there is the need for the Government, on a United Kingdom basis, to investigate methods of disposal of waste substances and not to go for the cheapest means of dumping in holes in the ground. For example, my local authority is now proposing to dump waste on a site alongside a site of special scientific interest.
  Until we have clearer scientific evidence, and until there is a greater basis of consensus with those who have to enforce these regulations, I believe that the Government should continue with the present legislation, ignore their self-imposed timetable, take these regulations back, and think again.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I cannot help but comment that if the Opposition Front Bench spokesman takes 29 minutes to make his speech it is not surprising that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should take 23 minutes to make his speech. Even so, it is extraordinary that, in a debate which can last for only 77 minutes, 52 minutes should be taken by the Front Bench spokesmen. One wonders what anybody thinks the House of Commons exists for.
  This is a debate between theorists and practitioners. In considering these regulations, there are three questions to be borne in mind.
  First, do the regulations reduce the level of control of pollution by toxic waste and the acceptable standards? The Government say that they do not; the local authorities say that they do.

  711
  Secondly, does it matter? In my view, it does matter. Those who dispose of toxic waste are being put on their honour. There is no worry about responsible people. But what about those who are not responsible people? This is the point that worries the local authorities.
  Thirdly, do the regulations reduce the costs for local government? Regarding the bureaucracy, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) pointed out, the answer is "Yes". But, so far as staff generally in local government are concerned, the answer is "No". What is more, in all likelihood, it will be difficult for local authorities to obtain the necessary staff that they will have to employ as a result of these new regulations. In effect, the regulations are creating nonsense in that respect.
  What should be done? The best answer would be for the Government to withdraw the regulations. At least, they should withdraw the regulations until the House of Lords Select Committee has had a chance to report. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear the cheers by Opposition Members in praise of the other place, which normally they wish to get rid of completely. But the other place could do a very useful job on these regulations. It might even be that it would come out in support of the Government, but I suspect that it might easily not. What would happen if it did not? It would make much more sense before introducing the regulations to await the outcome of the Select Committee in another place, which I have no doubt is filled with those who really know what they are talking about.
  Finally, and sadly, it seems that the regulations are yet another example of the man in Whitehall thinking that he knows best. That is not often so, and on this occasion there is a strong case for a degree of humility as it is not the man in Whitehall who puts the regulations into practice or who carries the can if something goes wrong. I can imagine the departmental self-righteousness when something goes wrong, as assuredly it will.
  It is remarkable that there is such unanimity of thinking on the part of the local authority associations, which are not best known for their ability to agree about anything. The Government must think again about this matter.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I shall briefly reiterate the remarks that have been made from all parts of the Chamber against the regulations. Having listened to the hon. Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), as well as to Labour Members, I hope that the Minister will reconsider these inadequate proposals. They are highly misguided and could be damaging in the control of pollution.
  I remind the House of the debate that took place in another place on 19 January, when Baroness Birk said:
  "Finally … this action is absolutely devastatingly, and, I would say, disgracefully immature, because the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology is looking into the whole subject of the organisation of method of hazardous waste disposal."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19Jannuary 1981; Vol. 416, c. 312.]
  Surely it would have been prudent to await the outcome of the Select Committee's findings before deciding on these regulations. Surely it would have been prudent to listen to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and district and county councils throughout the country.
  712
  I refer briefly to a letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) by the secretary and solicitor of his council, which points to the hazards that could be caused in that constituency if the regulations are enacted.
  We must decide what sort of community we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country that is a green and poisoned land or one that is a green and pleasant land? That is the issue on which we shall be voting. Regulations that reduce in any way the control over pollution are misguided and misconceived and the House should vote against them.
  11.28 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: In common with all those who have participated in the debate, I am deeply uneasy about the regulations. There seems to be some dispute about the attitude of the local authority associations. However, the Conservative-controlled Essex county council is utterly opposed to the regulations. Why is that? The reason is that Essex has suffered more than any other county from the uncontrolled deposit of waste, and toxic waste at that. The county council is most perturbed at the possibility of a weakening of control over the disposal of material of this nature that is at present notifiable but will escape notification if the regulations are enforced.
  The Association of County Councils tells me that two-thirds of the toxic wastes notifiable under the present system will cease to be notifiable from 16 March. Toxic wastes that are not likely to cause death but are dangerous to health and the environment will no longer be notifiable. The definition of toxicity has been dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths).
  No protection is given against the danger of chronic ill-health from exposure or against chronic ill-health caused by the escape of low-concentration pollutants—
  Mr. Walter Harrison Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Main Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 117.

  Division No.66]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Anderson, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashton, Joe

  English, Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Foster, Derek

  Brotherton, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim(Midd'tn&P)

  Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Graham,Ted

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Colvin, Michael

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hardy, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Dalyell,Tam

  Hawksley, Warren

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

  Haynes, Frank

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hooley, Frank

  Dixon, Donald

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Dormand, Jack

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Douglas, Dick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  713

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Penhaligon, David

  Lamond, James

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Prescott, John

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rooker, J.W.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund'(Goole)

  Stoddart, David

  Maxton, John

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Welsh, Michael

  Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ogden, Eric

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Park, George

  Mr. George Morton and

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. James Tinn.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Henderson, Barry

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hooson, Tom

  Best, Keith

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Blackburn, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Bright, Graham

  Lester Jim(Beeston)

  Brinton, Tim

  Luce, Richard

  Brittan, Leon

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  MacGregor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Butcher, John

  Madel, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Major, John

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

  Marlow, Tony

  Cope, John

  Mates, Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Crouch, David

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mellor, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dover, Denshore

  Moate, Roger

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Monro, Hector

  Dykes, Hugh

  Morgan, Geraint

  Eggar, Tim

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Murphy, Christopher

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Needham, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Newton, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Gorst, John

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hawkins, Paul

  Porter, Barry

  714

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Thompson, Donald

  Raison, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Waddington, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Ward, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Watson, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen

  Silvester, Fred

  Wheeler, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wickenden, Keith

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Speller, Tony

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Stevens, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Peter Brooke.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  ELECTION CANDIDATES (EXPENSES)
  That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.—[Mr. Berry.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

  DOMESTIC ANIMALS (HORMONE TREATMENT)
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10994/80 on the use of substances with a hormonal action and those having a thyrostatic action in domestic animals; COM (80) 922 Final, laying down conditions for controlling possession, distribution and administration to animals of certain substances with a hormonal action; and COM (80) 920 Final, concerning the control and examination of animals and meat in the Community for the presence of residues of substances with oestrogenic, androgenic, gestagenic and thyrostatic effect; but finds the present proposals impracticable and injurious to United Kingdom interests.—[Mr. Berry.]
  Question agreed to.

  Open Channel Radio
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Berry).
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I know that citizens band radio is normally associated with the motor car. It is, in fact, a hand-held telephone with no wires. It has many uses other than installation in motor vehicles.
  I first raised the question of the legalisation of this system in the House during the time of the previous Government, but they were clearly unwilling even to consider the matter. After the 1979 general election, the Conservative Government agreed in principle to freedom of the air, although they sensibly entered the caveat that this freedom should not interfere with other people's freedom.
  As a result, the parliamentary CB committee was formed under my chairmanship and also a National Committee for the Legalisation of CB Radio to co-ordinate numerous CB clubs and associations which represent over 100,000 CB enthusiasts. Councillor Yard was the first chairman of the national committee. He has been succeeded by Councillor Town.
  At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of State, who has met both committees whenever we wanted to see him and who has been most helpful and frank about the difficulties he faces in legalising a CB system. However, I cannot understand why he insists upon calling it Open Channel when the general public, brought up on American films and television, always refer to it as CB radio.
  There is a strong impression among those interested in CB radio that the officials have opposed its introduction and have been fighting a rearguard action to prevent its legalisation—
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: And how!
  Mr. Wall: —and have sought, if it is legalised, to emasculate it as far as possible. This view is illustrated by a discussion document that was made available last year. Incidentally, it was not obtainable from the the Stationery Office, which seems rather strange. The document was studiously vague, except in advocating a frequency of 928 MHz.
  The view is further illustrated by a meeting with Home Office officials on 18 December. I have here a copy of the minutes of that meeting, which was called for a time when it was known that the chairman of the national committee would be out of the country, as would its secretary, but the secretary managed to change his arrangements and attend the meeting. The object of the meeting is laid down in the minutes:
  "The meeting had been arranged in response to a request made by Mr. Raison, Minister of State, Home Office, on the 11th December by a delegation from the National Committee for the legalisation of CB Radio, for a discussion meeting with Home Office engineers on the technical merits of the delegation's proposals. The basis for the discussion was the National Committee's paper 'CB Independence'",
  a voluminous document, which I have here.
  The meeting made little progress in discussing the national committee's proposals, which had been submitted in detail to the Minister. It was confronted with a barrage of reasons why the 41 MHz band, which it had suggested,
  716
  should not be legalised. If my hon. Friend the Minister studies the committee's proposals carefully, he will see that in fact we proposed a frequency of 42·608 to 43 MHz, with 16 channels, and 43·694 to 44 MHz, with 20 channels. We know that the frequency tested by his officials—41·5 MHz—causes interference, but we claim that on the frequencies to which I have just referred the interference is minimal. It is clear from the minutes that these frequencies were never tested by his officials.
  Perhaps I should say here that the law is very muddled. As it stands, one can purchase a CB set, but one cannot install it, use it or import it. One hopes that these rules will be changed in the very near future.
  In view of the statements made in the House last week, I am bound to say that some officials of the Post Office searching for CB radios have adopted what amount to near-Gestapo tactics, by demanding entry at 2 am and virtually pulling a house apart in search of an illegal set. I have statements to the effect that the attitudes adopted might have been suitable for a search for an enemy spy transmitter during the last war.
  Mr. John Golding: Radio investigation officers, members of the Post Office Engineering Union, will bitterly resent the charge of using near-Gestapo methods, when they have to enforce a law that has not yet been changed, after representations from hospitals, fire services and other users. They have been put in an intolerable position, because they have to enforce the law. Conservative Members who would have law and order should do nothing other than to try to persuade the Minister of State to change the law to make it easier for them.
  Mr. Wall: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because it was he that I had in mind. Of course he is right in saying that officials have to uphold the law. What I am saying is that the way in which they do it is not always in conformity with the normal practice. There are two sides to every question. I shall leave it at that. My hon. Friend the Minister will, quite rightly, defend his officials, but it is only right that he and the House should know that those interested in CB radio have strong feelings on the matter—as undoubtedly do the officials that the hon. Gentleman represents in his trade union.
  With that background, I come to the two basic questions that we have to consider tonight. The first is the frequency to be allotted, and the second is the timing of the legislation—or, rather, the legalisation, because legislation is not required.
  There are three possible frequencies—928 MHz, favoured by the Home Office, 42·8 to 44 MHz, favoured by the national committee, and 27 MHz favoured by the large mass of at present illegal operators.
  In answer to a question last Thursday, the Minister said:
  "we have been reviewing the possibility of introducing a service on a lower frequency, in addition to one around 930 MHz."—[Official Report, 5 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 394.]
  I take it that that presupposes that either 42·8 MHz to 44 MHz or 27 MHz will be legalised. I cannot see any other meaning in that answer.
  With regard to 928 MHz, the Minister has admitted that the overwhelming number of replies to his consultative document were opposed to this frequency, largely because of the short range in built-up areas and the expense of UHF sets. I understand that the Europeans are studying an

  717
  international automatic car telephone around that frequency, but it will obviously be some time before the study is completed. France recently rejected that frequency completely.
  That leaves us with 41 MHz and 27 MHz. We are still in favour of the 41 MHz band. We have submitted evidence to show that, if properly tested, it causes minimal interference and no danger to health. Damage to health is possible on the 938 MHz band, using 25 watts, compared with 8 watts on the lower band. We need a range of about 10 miles, or, 15 kilometres, and an automatic identification device. It would clearly be of advantage to the manufacturers if the new frequency was legalised.
  In 1973, it was estimated that CB radio could provide work for 2,500 people and would cover a market of about £45 million a year. The Minister's main objection to the 41 MHz frequency, other than interference, is that it would have to wait until black and white television is phased out in three years. That is not our understanding. We understand that the BBC could almost immediately transmit black and white television on four of its transmitters, leaving the fifth available for CB users. That would also be in accord with international agreements.
  However, it may now be too late. Eighteen months ago, the Minister was warned that there were an estimated 30,000 illegal sets in this country, operating on 27 MHz. From the study of sales of aerials and other accessories, we believe that that figure has now reached 250,000. The Minister warned that the Governments of Australia and the Netherlands were opposed to that frequency but were forced to legalise it because of the large number of sets operating in those countries. That is most unsatisfactory, and I fear that the same situation will develop here.
  We backed the Minister in opposing 27 MHz, but we warned him that if action was not taken rapidly he would be forced to legalise that frequency. The police and the Post Office regulatory department have rightly—I emphasise rightly—increased the pressure against illegal operators, and many police forces have now given up as demands on their manpower have been too great. I understand that police constables have been issued orders to that effect.
  This is an unsatisfactory situation, but we must face facts. The question now to be asked with regard to 27 MHz is whether AM or FM should be legalised. Many illegal sets that are operating in this country today come from Japan or America, and they operate on 27 MHz AM. Although AM causes television interference, it is clear that some sets will continue to operate illegally whatever decision we reach. That is one of the reasons why the Citizens Band Association now favours AM.
  However, 27 MHz FM or CEPT PR 27 FM has now become virtually the official European standard. West Germany has legalised AM and FM. France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg have legalised 27 FM. I understand that Ireland is waiting for our decision. Although it will be a great disappointment to many CB users, the 27 FM frequency is virtually the European standard, and it should therefore be legalised in this country as soon as possible. Those who have bought illegal sets can hardly grumble if this is done.
  One of the objections to 27 MHz was that it would affect model aircraft seriously. I understand that they have now switched to 37 MHz, so that objection is out of the
  718
  way. Should the Government decide to legalise 27 MHz, I believe that they should keep the 41 MHz band as a possible European standard for the future. Users will switch relatively easily from 27 MHz to 41 MHz, but they are unlikely to switch to ultra-high frequency such as 928.
  My final comment concerns the timing. The question is when. Pressure grows every day. There have been demonstrations. More and more sets are being imported illegally, and more and more sets are being used illegally. The position can only get worse unless the Government act at once. On Thursday, the Minister said:
  "We hope to be able to announce our conclusions shortly."— [Official Report, 5 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 394.]
  I hope that "shortly" means within the next three months. This can only be in the Government's and the country's interest.
  As regards the administration of a legal system, I am authorised to say that the national committee, the CB Association and the clubs will give the Government every possible assistance in adminstration. But let us have a final decision before the second anniversary of the 1979 general election.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being allowed to support my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I add my own thanks to the Minister for his consideration of the whole question of citizens band radio, which is in stark contrast to the attitude of his Labour predecessor, who greeted every request for consideration of this subject with a negative response.
  The Minister only has to think about the number of hon. Members present to listen to this debate—an unprecedented number for an Adjournment debate—to understand the importance which is attached to it, and this is matched by the numbers of people outside the House physically this evening and outside the House at other times during the rest of the year.
  I fear that the Minister has to do battle with his officials in the Home Office, who have taken too negative an attitude over the years to the allocation of a citizens band radio wave length. The law against citizens band has been flouted for too long. When any law is challenged in the way that this law is challenged, a Government have seriously to consider changing it.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House some reassurance that that change in the law is being considered by the Government right now.
  11.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on raising this topic. I acknowledge the leadership that he has given in this matter.
  As my hon. Friend said, it is just over a year since we last had a similar short debate on this subject, and a good deal has happened in that time. In it, the Government have moved from a position of examining the issues to one of support in principle; we have issued a discussion document on our views, and seen an extremely heavy public response to it; and we are now close to reaching our final decisions. Thus, while my hon. Friends will not be surprised if I say that I cannot tell them what those decisions are tonight, I can say that they will not be long delayed.

  719
  There is, of course, no legal open channel service now, but there will be one, and I think that it will be noted that it is a Conservative Government who will be taking this step.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: When?
  Mr. Raison: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice will expect me to accept his strictures on my officials. I do not myself accept them. They have worked extremely hard under our policy, and I have no grounds for reproaching them.
  I have always thought that some of the arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of open channel or citizens band radio are sterile, or overstated. I believe that a new service can and will be helpful and enjoyable to many people, just as I am certain that it will cause problems and difficulties to others. But personal freedom matters, and that is the argument that we, as a Government, have always found strongest.
  I should like to explain some of the reasons why our decision is particularly difficult and has inevitably taken time. Radio regulation is an extremely complicated business. World conferences reach, by consensus, broad planning agreements designed to provide as much protection as possible to services of various kinds, and all administrations have to work within these in their national planning.
  The range of services to be protected is enormous—not just broadcasting or land mobile radio, of which open channel is one form, but radar, maritime and aircraft communications satellites, radio astronomy, radio links for passing digital or analogue information, and hundreds of other applications.
  We must remember that radio transmissions can be a source of interference to other radio services. The assignment of a frequency to a new service therefore requires the most careful consideration.
  I think, therefore, that it becomes clear that anyone who simply operates outside this carefully planned framework, however desirable his activities might appear to be, is likely to cause chaos. The present illicit 27 MHz transmissions are, unfortunately, a very clear example of this.
  I told the House a year ago that illicit users of CB could cause inconvenience and even risk to their fellow-citizens. One of the real difficulties about this is that a CB user generally has no idea of his effect on others. He may therefore think that we are simply crying wolf. But it is my Department that takes the overall responsibility for dealing with complaints of interference, and it therefore monitors closely what is going on.
  At present, in a year we expect to have about 35,000 complaints of interference from all sources to radio services. Over 90 per cent. of these relate to broadcasting services. In the last four months of 1980 there were more than 2,700 complaints, which were traced to illicit CB 27 MHz transmissions; in other words, a rise of nearly 25 per cent. in the total number of complaints. Nearly 2,000 of these were cases of interference to television reception, and nearly 600 to radio or hi-fi equipment. Police, fire, ambulance and hospital paging services were also affected. Our warnings of potential risks are therefore being borne out in practice in a way that can only cause concern. Such interference is expensive. It has to be paid
  720
  for by the television viewer, the licensed user of radio, or the taxpayer. Moreover, it may cause friction between neighbours.
  This interference from 27 MHz equipment comes largely from one of two sources—first, from unsuitable basic equipment; and secondly, from the use of powerful linear amplifers designed to boost the power output of the equipment many times over. Offending users have been traced, who have been using power outputs of 1 kW or even more—in other words, perhaps twice as much as the power of a local broadcasting station. I remain of the view that open channel must be a short-range personal radio service.
  The next significant thing about open channel is that it has to be a countrywide service. The user in the north of England will use the same frequency as his counterpart in the south of England. There are very few radio services of which one can say that. There are different channels for television in different areas. Private mobile radio frequencies are issued individually so that they can be interleaved geographically. A frequency that would interfere with, for example, a particular television channel is not used in the relevant area. But open channel, being countrywide, has to be able to live with and not to harm any other radio service throughout the United Kingdom and in neighbouring countries, such as France and the Republic of Ireland.
  Interference can have many causes. It is not simply a matter of one set of radio equipment interfering with another because they are operating on the same frequency. Any equipment when transmitting also emits potentially interfering, spurious signals. Of these, the harmonics or multiples of the tuned and basic frequency are generally most harmful. The fundamental or the harmonic signal may interact with the tuned frequency, with the intermediate frequency or with the frequency change oscillator in a radio or television receiver. Finally, interference may be caused simply because a transmitter is used too near the receiver of another service.
  This last category can never be eliminated, and it highlights clearly the difficulties that will be caused by open channel because of its mode and scale of use. Open channel will be a social thing. It will therefore be used widely in residential areas and in buildings such as blocks of flats, where it will be far nearer than transmitters of other services to home entertainment equipment such as radio, television, and hi-fi. This gives yet another twist to the interference risks inherent in such a service, and the scale of likely use presents problems of administration and enforcement never encountered in this form before.
  Finally, the radio frequency spectrum is finite and heavily used. There is no bottomless bucket of frequencies that we are hiding for our own purposes.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Does the Minister accept that almost all his arguments about the difficulties are the same as the arguments used by Departments and services against local radio? Those difficulties were overcome. It should not be beyond the wit of man to overcome these difficulties.
  Mr. Raison: I think that the hon. Member will understand that we are committed to overcoming difficulties in the way of open channel or CB. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has said it."] I have said "CB" several times. It is no good pretending that there are not serious

  721
  problems, and it is my duty to explain to the House what those problems are. I shall now come on to the question of how we will approach the matter.
  What I have said was the background to our discussion document on open channel. It drew a heavy response, which I found heartening, not because it supported our initial views, for it did not, but because it represented a real exercise in consultation, and a reaction that the Government are taking fully into account. It is perhaps not surprising that we did not reach the much larger part of the population who will not use open channel but may be affected by it, and we had to think of those people as well.
  Most individuals who responded strongly favoured a frequency of 27MHz for open channel. On the other hand, all the organisations that commented, other than user organisations, opposed this, but without having any common view of what they would prefer. Little public support was given to our proposal for a service at around 930 MHz. Nevertheless, we still see such a service as viable. It will give not only a better service than is generally realised, particularly in urban areas, but a better quality service. If it were as poor as has been alleged, it is strange that both North America and many countries in Europe are planning to introduce it, thus creating the prospect of a new and large international market. Nevertheless, it was the strong public reaction which caused my right hon. Friend in his answer to a question on 18 December, to undertake to look further at the possibility of introducing a service on a frequency lower than 900 MHz. Further studies have been made and these are now virtually complete. We have consulted widely on a technical basis with user representatives, manufacturing interests, and organisations such as the broadcasting authorities and emergency services.
  We agree that the need is pressing, and that there can be no question of waiting for frequencies which might be available only in a few years. Nor can we put our agreements with our neighbours at risk. Most important of all, we cannot select a frequency which, almost irrespective of the quality of the equipment used, can be guaranteed to cause widespread interference. I emphasise that our findings have been made widely available to those concerned, and no one has challenged on any scientific basis our assessment of the interference risks.
  Unfortunately, all the alternative suggestions that have been put to us fall foul of one or other, and frequently all three, of the constraints I have just mentioned. The 41·5 MHz frequency band—part of the band used for transmission of the 405 line black and white television
  722
  programmes—is a classic example. Our tests have shown that the interference risks to television reception would be higher than with any form of 27 MHz service, and indeed much higher than with one using frequency modulation. Frequencies a little higher than 41·5 MHz would reduce but not eliminate the problems, while the other difficulties would continue to apply.
  We also have to recognise that the world has already made its choice; 27 MHz in one form or another is widely used, and, as I mentioned earlier, North America and Europe are planning to introduce a service at around 930 MHz. Any other choice would be a one-off British one which no other country in the world would permit. Thus, one of the wishes of the enthusiast—to be able to take his equipment abroad—would not be met.
  One can develop that a little further. The equipment at present illegally used in this country is amplitude modulated equipment on the American pattern, although even then, some of it is obsolete and no longer permitted in America, and has quite simply been dumped here. Few enthusiasts want to take their cars or trucks to the United States, but that AM equipment is not generally acceptable on the Continent. France, Holland and Germany operate 27 MHz FM services, because their investigations and their experience have proved that the performance and the cost are similar, and the interference problems much less.
  Our task, therefore, is to make available a service which conforms as far as possible to the aspirations of the large number of potential users and to encourage them to use equipment which does least harm to the even larger number of other radio users. Supporters of open channel have stressed to me their willingness and ability to act responsibly, and they will certainly have to justify that. Before long they should have in their hands a service for their pleasure, and a powerful tool for good or evil. I mentioned personal freedom at the beginning of my speech. Personal responsibility is the reverse of that coin.
  I have commented tonight on the factors that have to be borne in mind in making a judgment. We are quite commonly accused of opposing a personal two-way radio service. That is quite unjust and my hon. Friend acknowledged that. We have not taken sides against it. We have decided to introduce a service, and we have carried out very wide consultations both to explore the difficulties and to hear suggestions. But radio regulation seeks the greatest good for the greatest number and that is what we have to continue to seek until we reach our final answer.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Trade
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Motor Accessories and Components
  Motor Accessories and Components
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Unseaworthy Foreign Vessels
  Unseaworthy Foreign Vessels
  Shipping (River Thames)
  Shipping (River Thames)
  Frederika I
  Frederika I
  Coastal Vessels (Manning and Certification Requirements)
  Coastal Vessels (Manning and Certification Requirements)
Employment
  Special Employment Measures (Cheshire)
  Special Employment Measures (Cheshire)
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Job Creation and Retention
  Job Creation and Retention
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Young Workers
  Young Workers
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Aided School Staff (Employment Act Provisions)
  Aided School Staff (Employment Act Provisions)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
Civil Service
  Graduates
  Graduates
Home Department
  Summary Cases (Prosecution Statements)
  Summary Cases (Prosecution Statements)
  Parole
  Parole
  Electoral Arrangements
  Electoral Arrangements
  Albany Prison (Disciplinary Offences)
  Albany Prison (Disciplinary Offences)
Energy
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Energy Policy
  Energy Policy
  Nissan Motor Company
  Nissan Motor Company
  Trade Delegation (Japan)
  Trade Delegation (Japan)
  Japanese Investment
  Japanese Investment
Wales
  A487 (Caernarfon)
  A487 (Caernarfon)
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Planning Appeals Systems
  Planning Appeals Systems
  Tubercular Cows
  Tubercular Cows
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Trade Delegation (Japan)
  Trade Delegation (Japan)
  Young Workers
  Young Workers
Social Services
  Widowed Mothers' Allowance
  Widowed Mothers' Allowance
  New Born Infants
  New Born Infants
  National Health Service (Fund-raising)
  National Health Service (Fund-raising)
  Young Offenders (Treatment Programmes)
  Young Offenders (Treatment Programmes)
  Young Persons (Community Order)
  Young Persons (Community Order)
  Children's Regional Planning Committees
  Children's Regional Planning Committees
  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Operational Economies
  Operational Economies
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Consultant Vacancies
  Consultant Vacancies
  Analgesics
  Analgesics
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Primary Health Services
  Primary Health Services
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
National Finance
  Assistant Secretaries and Under-Secretaries
  Assistant Secretaries and Under-Secretaries
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Finance Act 1980 (De-mergers)
  Finance Act 1980 (De-mergers)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Inspectors of Taxes
  Inspectors of Taxes
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Government Final Consumption Expenditure
  Government Final Consumption Expenditure
  Motability
  Motability
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Unemployment Costs
  Unemployment Costs
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
Industry
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Steel Industry (Special Steels)
  Steel Industry (Special Steels)
  Grants (Repayment)
  Grants (Repayment)
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Plastics Industry (Scotland)
  Plastics Industry (Scotland)
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Manufacturing Industry (Productivity)
  Manufacturing Industry (Productivity)
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Public Purchasing
  Public Purchasing
  Television Manufacturing Industry
  Television Manufacturing Industry
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Engineering Industry (Productivity)
  Engineering Industry (Productivity)
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Space Programme
  Space Programme
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Industrial Recovery
  Industrial Recovery
  Redpath-Dorman-Long
  Redpath-Dorman-Long
  BL Limited
  BL Limited
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Nissan Motor Company
  Nissan Motor Company
  Paper Industry
  Paper Industry
  European Space Agency
  European Space Agency
  South Bank Polytechnic Microcomputer Centre (Exhibition)
  South Bank Polytechnic Microcomputer Centre (Exhibition)
  Industrial Wages and Salaries
  Industrial Wages and Salaries
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Nationalised Industries (Finance)
  Nationalised Industries (Finance)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Mining Machinery
  Mining Machinery
  Sector Working Parties
  Sector Working Parties
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  South Africa
  South Africa
European Community
  European Assembly (Expenditure)
  European Assembly (Expenditure)
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  European Community Directives
  European Community Directives
  Poultry Meat
  Poultry Meat
Defence
  Departmental Purchasing Policy
  Departmental Purchasing Policy
  Standby Squadron
  Standby Squadron
  RAF Bentley Priory and RAF Stanmore Park
  RAF Bentley Priory and RAF Stanmore Park
Environment
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Housing Capital Expenditure
  Housing Capital Expenditure
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  House Building (Outer London)
  House Building (Outer London)
  Local Authorities (Nomenclature)
  Local Authorities (Nomenclature)
  London Borough of Camden (Audit)
  London Borough of Camden (Audit)
  Council Housing Moratorium
  Council Housing Moratorium
  British Airways Building (Buckingham Palace Road, London)
  British Airways Building (Buckingham Palace Road, London)
  Housing Condition Survey
  Housing Condition Survey
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Housing Projects (New Towns)
  Housing Projects (New Towns)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
Scotland
  Bulls
  Bulls
  Murrayfield (Car Park)
  Murrayfield (Car Park)
  Housing Support Grant (Aberdeen)
  Housing Support Grant (Aberdeen)
  Capital Expenditure (Lothian)
  Capital Expenditure (Lothian)
  Community Hall, Elphinstone
  Community Hall, Elphinstone
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
Transport
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Armitage Report
  Armitage Report
Education and Science
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Computer-related Science
  Computer-related Science
  Education Services (Manpower Costs)
  Education Services (Manpower Costs)
  Polytechnics (Local Authority Costs)
  Polytechnics (Local Authority Costs)
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Primary Schools (Cornwall)
  Primary Schools (Cornwall)
  Education Costs
  Education Costs
  School Punishment Books
  School Punishment Books
  Assistant Secretaries and Under-Secretaries
  Assistant Secretaries and Under-Secretaries
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Schools (Computer Software)
  Schools (Computer Software)
  Teachers (West Midlands)
  Teachers (West Midlands)
  National Teachers Pension Fund
  National Teachers Pension Fund
  Assessment of Performance Unit
  Assessment of Performance Unit
  Architectural Association
  Architectural Association
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
Northern Ireland
  De Lorean Car Company Limited
  De Lorean Car Company Limited
  Maze Prison (Hunger Strikers)
  Maze Prison (Hunger Strikers)
  Petrol Bomb Attacks (Londonderry)
  Petrol Bomb Attacks (Londonderry)

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

Satellite Monitoring: French Proposal
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude to the French proposal that the United Nations should have an international control system in outer space to monitor troop movements and war preparations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government view the French proposal as an interesting one. We look forward to the report of the United Nations group of experts which has been attempting to work out the details of such a scheme, including costs.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is it not the case that the United Nations General Assembly endorsed this proposal in 1978? Is it not the case that the USA and the USSR now have their surveillance satellites reporting on each other's territory, and would it not be much better to have a United Nations surveillance, the information from which could be known internationally and might aid verification of international conventions outlawing certain weapons and facilitate further disarmament?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think the United Nations could have endorsed this proposal in 1978 because it was not in fact made until 1979.
2
However, the general tenor of the noble Lord's remarks, along the lines that this might be a useful proposal to agree, is worth considering, and I can tell the noble Lord that we look forward to the report of the group of experts to which I referred.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his correction, may I ask him this further question: Might this not be a precursor to a United Nations peace-keeping force in outer space, where four-fifths of the satellites are now for military purposes and are threatening conflict?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is rushing me on a bit. I would prefer to wait for the report of the committee of experts before taking this matter the further several stages which the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he is expecting the report that he has mentioned? How long will it take before we get it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have the note in front of me but I recall, I think, that the report of the group of experts is expected before the end of this year.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is it not the case that the report is to be presented by June for consideration by the United Nations General Assembly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, is very well informed in these matters, and I feel sure he is right.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the report will put a costing on this project, and can we be sure that all the other members of the United Nations will contribute to the cost?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is too early to say who will contribute to the costs of this project, but I can say that the report of the group of experts will include an estimate of the likely costs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not true that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is quite wrong in saying that the majority of satellites have military purposes, and that the real truth of the matter is that the whole space around this earth is being slowly filled with small bits of satellite rubbish which now serve no purpose whatever and will some day have to be swept up?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is true, of course, that many of the satellites circling our earth are in fact spent and now serve no useful purpose. As for the noble Viscount's earlier point as to the percentage of satellites used for military or civilian purposes, again I do not have the precise figures in front of me, but I should perhaps say that many satellites—like some communications satellites, for example—in fact serve both military and civilian purposes.

Small Businesses and VAT
2.40 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as part of their policy to aid small businesses, they will raise the VAT threshold from £25,000 to £50,000.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the VAT registration threshold is at present £13,500, not £25,000 as my noble friend suggests. Any change in the threshold is a matter for the Budget statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I am unable to anticipate.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, including his correction, and I apologise for being misinformed of the facts. Does my noble friend not agree that the easing of taxation would assist productivity in small businesses as well as in others?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he says. I think that the easing of taxation would be to everybody's benefit, but, so far as the VAT threshold is concerned, there was a very substantial increase last year from £10,000 to £13,500, and any further increase is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that to have to do all the form-filling and all the other accounting that is required for VAT purposes is a very heavy burden on small employers and small businesses? Would he not also agree that it would increase productivity if the threshold was raised a lot higher? May I further ask my noble friend why small businessmen should be unpaid tax collectors? It really is a great imposition.
Lord Cockfield: My Lord, my noble friend raises a number of points. First of all, the simple fact is that when the threshold was increased substantially last year some 80 per cent. of the businesses which were entitled to be deregistered did not do so. We are of course anxious to reduce the burden of administration wherever that can be done, but the collection of tax at the source—and the collection of VAT is an example of this—has existed in the tax system of this country, and indeed of almost every other country, for a very long period of time.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me that in many cases small businesses profit in terms of cash flow by being unpaid tax collectors in that they have the use of VAT money until it has to be returned?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is a perfectly true and valid point. Indeed, very large sums of money are provided as working capital for business through the machinery which is adopted for the collection of VAT.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, did the noble Lord see in the recent edition of "The Money Programme" on BBC television the sale of factory machinery, when the extremely interesting point (which was not made much of in that programme) was made that, although major firms were selling off, the firms which were doing best, and to whom machinery was selling most briskly, were the small firms? Will he not agree with me that this shows that there is a growth of small industry willing to be encouraged and able to be encouraged in this country, and that this is the best and most promising way of getting out of our present entanglements and the unemployment problem?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, there is a considerable growth potential in small businesses and we are anxious to give it every possible encouragement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that raising the VAT level would be a contribution to encouraging entrepreneurs in the hidden economy to come out into the open and that that would be of great assistance in a number of directions?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Baroness is one that has been raised on a number of occasions. I very much doubt whether an increase in the registration limit would have any very significant effect on the size of the black economy.
Lord Spens: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that 90 per cent. of the revenue collected by Customs and Excise for VAT is contributed by fewer than 10 per cent. of the firms who are registered for VAT?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is perfectly true that a very large proportion of the total VAT comes from a relatively small number of firms, but that has no very direct bearing on the level of the threshold.

NHS General Medical Practices in Inner London
2.45 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: 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 how many National Health Service general medical practices in Inner London have less than 1,000 patients and how many doctors in those practices are over 70 years of age.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, on 1st October 1980, there were 58 general medical practices in Inner London with less than 1,000 patients providing unrestricted general medical services. Twenty-four doctors in those practices were aged 70 or over. A further 36 practices provide restricted services, mostly to staff of hospitals or institutions. Two doctors in those restricted practices were aged 70 or over.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that information. Is the noble Lord aware that more doctors with small lists of patients, more doctors with very large lists of patients, more doctors of 70 years of age and more doctors working single-handed are to be found in Inner London than anywhere else in the country? Is this not largely due to the fact that lists of 1,000 patients enable a doctor to claim the basic allowances permitted under the National Health Service—which means that, having got the basic allowances for the 1,000 patients, they are then free to go and earn additional income outside the National Health Service?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, that is absolutely true. There is nothing to stop a National Health Service doctor from having private patients as well as National Health Service patients. That has always been the case and I do not think it has been suggested that it should change.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this: Does not this mean that there must be a large number of people in Inner London who are not being properly cared for from a health point of view or not being cared for at all; or who, if they want care, have to go privately? It seems that everything points to that; and that in areas like that of this House, in Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, 1 in 8 of doctors in general practice is over the age of 70 and 1 in 6 has fewer than 1,000 patients. Is this not quite deplorable? I should like to know whether the Government are proposing to do anything about it.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that the whole question of primary health care deficiencies in Inner London—and we realise that there are some—is currently being considered by a study group established by the London Health Planning Consortium under the chairmanship of Professor Donald Acheson, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Southampton.
6
The report is expected in the next few months and will be studied with interest.
Lord Segal: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the age of 70 is rather an arbitrary figure to fix for a doctor's retirement?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, like everyone else, I agree with the noble Lord.

Fast Breeder Reactors: Future Policy
2.49 p.m.
Lord Wolverton: 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 announce their future policy towards fast breeder reactor power plants.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, fast reactor policy is under review in the light of advice that the Government have received from the Atomic Energy Authority and nuclear industry. No decisions have been taken; but a statement will be made as soon as Government policy has reached the appropriate stage.
Lord Wolverton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for that reply. I would say, arising out of that, that we debated this subject—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Wolverton: My Lords, I should like to put this question to my noble friend. May I ask him this on reply? It was debated in this House last December-year and we were promised a Statement early in 1980 and we still have not had that Statement. I think that it is unsatisfactory that we are told today that it is still under consideration.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the frustration of my noble friend, as I am well aware of the interest throughout the House in nuclear policy. But the House and my noble friend will be aware of the complexity of this issue, the very great expense, the long lead time and the importance of getting policy absolutely right. I must ask him to bear with us a little longer.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as there is likely to be a world uranium shortage early in the next century, would the Government agree that a fast breeder reactor policy is probably essential for our future energy requirements?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I have debated this subject on many occasions and we have often found ourselves in agreement about it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, no matter what is the outcome of the considerations that the noble Lord is seeking, may I ask what steps will the Government take to prevent the fast reactor becoming an example of so many praiseworthy British initiatives which have been heavily backed with public funds only to find themselves lost in the sands of governmental penuriousness until the day when we have to pay others for the know-how whose completion we have foregone —in this case probably the French?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, we have no intention of being—I think the word is "penurious". We have every intention of trying to get a policy of this complexity and sophistication right.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, given the uranium shortage expected at the end of the century, it is urgent to get a prototype fast reactor of the commercial scale going for at least 10 years and proved to be safe so that the programme can go ahead? Therefore delays on this matter are really very worrying to those who take the matter seriously. This is not a party issue at all; our views are the same on both sides of the House.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I accept that this is not a party issue and I also have always registered that your Lordships' House takes a longer term view of energy policy, as is only right, than perhaps other parts of our economy. I shall bring what my noble friend has had to say to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this: If we can look forward to a uranium shortage, surely we can look forward too to a uranium famine and so perhaps have a more peaceful world?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the point that the noble Baroness is making. If she will look at the other answers to the supplementary questions, she will see that it is a grave prospect for nuclear energy if there is a uranium shortage. That is one of the reasons why the Government are considering fast breeder reactor policy.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that our present stocks of uranium and plutonium in this country, if used in a fast reactor, exceed the energy from known reserves of coal? Secondly, would he also agree that though there may not be a uranium famine worldwide until the beginning of the next century, one always has to consider a political situation when one examines the continuing supply of any mineral?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that that is one of the very interesting features of the fast breeder reactor.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's unwillingness to declare a policy regarding the future of a fast breeder reactor is already beginning to threaten the existence of the very teams who will be needed if the fast reactor is wanted?
8
Will the noble Earl admit that the real reason why he is unable to give us an answer is that all of his research teams are currently engaged in examining the safety or otherwise of the pressure water reactor and therefore there is no spare capacity to do the reviews on the fast reactor? That is the real reason why he is unable to give us an answer about Government policy.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not accept that interpretation. As my original Answer made plain, we have received advice from the Atomic Energy Authority. We have received advice on fast breeders from the nuclear industry and this is precisely the advice that we are considering.

Dinners
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. It is proposed that the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill should be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately 40 minutes and the Second Readings of nine private Bills will be taken during this adjournment.
Industry Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a.
Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, 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.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Protection of certain wild animals]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 54, line 36, at end insert—
(" ( ) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9) In any proceedings for an offence under subsections (1) and (1A) any averment that an article is a restricted article shall, until the contrary be proved, be sufficient evidence of that fact.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is almost exactly the same as Amendment No. 243 in the name of Lord Houghton of Sowerby. May I suggest that we discuss these two amendments together. The only main difference concerns where this new clause should be inserted. I have no strong views on this. If it seems more convenient that Lord Houghton's choice be adopted, I am very content; but mine is the first amendment on the List. My amendment deals with the 1976 Act and the problems which have arisen under that Act. A lot of the difficulties have arisen in controlling the trade in endangered species because of problems associated with the correct identification of species; ensuring that the terms of reference of licences or permits are valid and with protecting those traders who deliberately avoid customs procedure entirely; the deliberate mislabelling of species to evade controls, for instance, by claiming that a certain species—which is on Appendix I and therefore banned from commercial trade—is a common species upon which there are no restrictions; forgery of documents issued by country of origin, which allows limited trade; and the smuggling of endangered species for sale to private collections. Those are common occurrences which result in a substantial commercial market being illegally supplied with endangered species and their products; skins, furs, feathers, et cetera.
There are two ways of tackling this, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and myself should like to cover both of them. One is by dealing with the strengthening of the powers or the ability of Customs and Excise at the ports of entry. This is what Amendment No. 242 is about. The other way is by strengthening the powers of the police to deal with evasions once the endangered species have entered the country.
Because of these difficulties in controlling the import of restricted species or their derivatives, the 1976 Act also makes it an offence to sell these articles. This amendment seeks to resolve a difficulty over prosecuting for an offence in connection with the sale of restricted articles. At present, a prosecutor must prove, first, the lack of any licence and, secondly, that the article is restricted. However, even if this is proved, it is sufficient for the defendant to declare that so far as he is aware the article in question was either home-bred or imported before the 1976 Act came into force for the prosecution to fail, unless the prosecution can show otherwise, which is very often an impossible task.
It is doubtful whether, when the 1976 Act was passed, this was intended because where the Customs and Excise prosecute in proceedings relating to Customs and Excise, certain matters are assumed unless the defendant proves otherwise. The burden of proof is on the defence; and these matters include the fact that the article in question was imported illegally under Section 154 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Therefore, prosecutions for unlicensed imports under the 1976 Act do not present a problem, being brought by Customs and Excise and the burden of proof lying there. However, even if a prosecution under Section 4 of the 1976 Act relates to Customs and Excise, the assumptions referred to apply only when proceedings are brought by Customs and Excise or by a Law Officer of the Crown, such as the Attorney
10
General. These prosecutions are most unusual, for the police are the body primarily responsible for the enforcement of offences to sell under Section 4 of the 1976 Act; Section 154 of the Customs and Excise Act does not apply to them. Therefore, the police do not have the same advantages that the Customs and Excise have in prosecuting suspected breaches of the law; and this is an anomalous position.
This amendment seeks to apply the assumption that the articles in question, in a case involving the illegal sale of endangered species or their derivatives, were illegally imported. A defendant could no longer just claim that an article was imported before 1976 without any corroborating evidence. He would have to show that the article was legally imported in some manner, for example, by referring to the necessary licence or to some receipt showing when or where the article was obtained, or witnesses attesting that the article was legally obtained, or witnesses attesting that he had possession of that particular article before the 1976 Act was passed.
The Endangered Species Act is Britain's primary piece of legislation for ensuring that we meet our obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Unless the commercial market for endangered species is effectively controlled, the illegal trade will continually undermine the efforts of countries of origin of these species to protect and conserve them in their natural environment. I think it is easy to underestimate the skill and ingenuity which goes into the trade in these very valuable and lucrative rare products. A very great deal of effort is expended in trying to smuggle, and therefore a great deal of vigilance has to be used in order to try to prevent this. It is essential that our legislation is as effective as possible in being able to stop that illegal trade, but while this loophole in the prosecution of selling offences exists, it cannot hope to be. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment to Schedule 9. I beg to move.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Very briefly, we from this side support any attempt to give the police and the customs a better chance to detect and bring to prosecution the very disagreeable smuggling trade—in particular in birds, which I know about, and in rare animals in general. I think I need say no more than this: unless the Government can give some good reason why there is something illiberal or wrong about this, we hope that they will accept the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope the Government will accept this amendment. We are dealing with people charged with the illegal sale of endangered species; they are the people to whom this amendment relates. At present, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has explained, when a Law Officer or the Customs and Excise are bringing the charge they do not have to prove that the endangered species being illegally sold were also illegally imported. The presumption is in those cases that the person illegally selling was also illegally importing, and it is up to him to produce a licence if he claims that he had earlier permission to import these endangered species, or otherwise to bring some corroborative evidence if he claims that

11
he was lawfully in possession of these endangered species.
However, the police, as the noble Lord explained in moving this amendment, are not put into the same position as a Law Officer or the Customs and Excise, and therefore they are at a disadvantage. I know that we do not like putting the onus of proof on a person who is charged—that is, upon a defendant—because it is a cardinal feature of our system of jurisprudence that the prosecution should prove the charges and that the defendant is not called upon to prove his innocence. Nevertheless, departures from that rule have been found necessary in dealing with particularly difficult and slippery people, and especially when one is dealing with the illegal sale of endangered species. The problem of identification and of proving that a certain bird or animal was illegally imported is very difficult. All the advantage lies with the defendant in these cases and, therefore, I hope that the exceptions that are made for prosecutions undertaken by a Law Officer or by the Customs and Excise will extend to the police.
It may be that what one does for a Law Officer or the Customs and Excise one does not do for the police. That may be a reflection, if you like, on the police, or at least it is perhaps a testimonial to Law Officers or to the Customs and Excise that they would not bring a prosecution frivolously or without a good deal of evidence that the charge could be brought home to the defendant. However, this trade is so squalid, and the people engaged in it so despicable, that I think we are justified in being severe with them; otherwise the protection given to an endangered species ceases to be adequate and they become more endangered still. I think we have to depart in this case from any general rule we might have on this subject and ask the defendant to show at least that he held these endangered species lawfully. The charge against him is that he unlawfully stole them. But, at least, he should prove that they were lawfully in his possession. So I support this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I also rise to support this amendment. The intention behind the Washington Convention was to protect endangered species by strictly controlling the trade in them. Everyone in this House knows that this just is not working as well as it should. In practice, such rare creatures reach the market because it is claimed that they are a common species and are not subject to control. In some cases, it is almost impossible to tell the difference. Such deliberate, incorrect labelling, forgery of documents and smuggling are all part of this unpleasant trade. Our weapon is the 1976 Act, which the noble Lord seeks to strengthen. Unless commercial markets are effectively controlled, the illegal trade will continue to undermine the efforts of the countries of origin of these endangered species to protect and conserve them in their natural environment. I support the amendment.
Lord Gridley: I should like to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do so very briefly from experience of having served over a number of years in an overseas
12
customs and excise department, dealing with smuggling. People who enter into this trade do so for profit, and all kinds of subterfuges are adopted by them. I have recently had some experience of the practices followed by people who engage in this trade, and I think that there is a necessity for this amendment. Therefore, I certainly support it.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I do not want to be in any way derogatory about this amendment, because I totally support the principle lying behind it. But if we passed this amendment into law, we should be in danger of putting a lot of innocent people at risk. There are so many bits of ivory which are legally entering world markets. Elephants die and tusks come onto the market legally, and if every tradesman dealing in ivory had to prove that he had a perfect right to it, it would put an enormous onus on him.
I am not trying to be a wet blanket about this, because, in principle, I strongly support the amendment. But it goes frightfully wide and it is on the wideness of this amendment that I should like to hear from the Government. Innocent people are dealing in ivory which has come from dead elephants' tusks and there is nothing wrong with that. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I corresponded for weeks and months on this and I could not agree more that everything we can do to stop illegal trading is all to the good. But how does one get to the root of this? And is this amendment not a little dangerous? That is all I am asking your Lordships to consider.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This amendment relates to living species—not to products, not to tusks and not to skins. It relates to endangered species.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, said that he did not want to be a wet blanket, but I think he was being one.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am a little surprised at the strength of the arguments which have been introduced in favour of this amendment, and we may have to think about it again. The reason I say that is that we have had legal advice that the powers are sufficient. I am also told that the customs powers which are already in existence are considered sufficient to cover breaches of the import prohibition. This is evidenced by the ever-increasing number of seizures which are made at ports and airports.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to interrupt, but the amendment strikes at the question of prosecutions. I hope the noble Lord may be going on to tell us about the ever-increasing number of prosecutions, but I doubt that he will be able to.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I was going on to the question of prosecutions. Obviously, the difficulty here is that the burden of proof, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, is being shifted under this amendment. As the Committee knows, it is usual in criminal proceedings that the burden is on the prosecutor and not on the defendant. That is the nub of the problem over this amendment. I think most noble Lords would not wish to have an exception to the

13
normal legal process. But, as I said, the case has been so strongly put forward that I shall take further advice and, if it seems that something should be done on these lines, we will amend the Bill on Report.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: May I just say with great respect that I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, got his last intervention slightly wrong? In fact, this amendment deals with products, whereas the next amendment deals only with living animals. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, raised the very important question of the danger to innocent people. I am very well aware of this problem and would not wish to widen unnecessarily the number of cases in which the burden or proof is on the ordinary person.
But I find it difficult to think of instances where, in innocent cases, it would not be very easy for the defendants to prove that they had bought something from someone else or that they had had it some time. This is a case where the enormous number of guilty people who would be caught would not be at all balanced by the innocent. Quite honestly, I cannot visualise, in practice, the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, quite rightly produced in theory. Having made those two points, I should like to say how much I welcome the Government's undertaking to look at this again, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
3.18 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 54, line 41, at end insert—
(" In section 5 of the 1976 Act, subsections (1) and (2) shall be omitted, and there shall be inserted the following sub-sections:—

" (1) The Secretary of State shall make an order under this section relating to live animals of the kinds to which Schedule 1 to this Act for the time being applies.

(2) An order under this section shall provide that (subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order) it is prohibited to do the following—

(a)

(i) either to import by sea any live animal of any kind to which the order is expressed to relate; or

(ii) to import any such animal by sea unless it is imported at a port or one of the ports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;

(b)

(i) either to import any such animal by air; or

(ii) to import any such animal by air unless it is unloaded at an airport or one of the airports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;

(c)

(i) either to import any such animal by land; or

(ii) to import any such animal by land unless it is brought across the boundary into Northern Ireland at a place or one of the places specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind.".").

The noble Lord said: This carries on the discussion of the 1976 Act and the difficulties raised by its major exemption. Here we move on from just the products of animals to the animals themselves, and to the method of enforcing with greater efficiency the control at ports of entry. The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 is one of the best pieces of EEC legislation to control the trade in endangered species and their products, but as we have already heard there are considerable practical problems.
At present, we allow trade in endangered species to be continued through any of our land, air or sea ports. This poses serious problems with regard to monitoring the levels of trade in particular species; ensuring the welfare of live species, particularly exotic ones from other continents; providing adequate enforcement controls to meet out international obligations to ban or limit trade in certain wild species; providing adequate quarantine facilities and providing auxiliary expertise, either zoological or veterinary, to customs officers who are experiencing difficulties in the course of exercising their duties.
Section 5 of the 1976 Act gives the Secretary of State power to restrict places at which live animals may be imported; in particular, to assist the discovery of any importation of species in which trade is banned. So far, this permissive power has not been acted upon and this amendment would oblige the Secretary of State so to designate certain ports. Obviously, if the Secretary of State were to say that he was intending to enforce the power that he already has and proceeded in that way, that would be an equally happy solution to the problem. The principle already is in force for the control of rabies, where only certain ports handle freight in domestic animals. It would seem to be logical to extend this system to wild species as well. The advantages would be considerable. I believe there is reason to think that Customs and Excise would also welcome the proposal.
It should be stressed that this amendment applies only to live animals. It does not include their products. It is a very limited amendment. At present we expect all our customs officers to understand the complexities involved in differentiating between species, many of which seem similar even to the knowledgeable layman. By restricting ports of entry to a small number, this expertise may be built up among a small group of customs officers who could be effectively and economically trained to identify listed species, the trade in which is banned or otherwise controlled. Moreover, in the case of difficulties, outside expertise could be more easily drawn upon. Already there are experts in species identification. Members of the Species Conservation Monitoring Unit are part of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature who are prepared to assist customs officers, if necessary.
In the case of live animals turning up at other ports, the problem of identification would not occur. A live animal can easily be rerouted. Facilities for the effective handling of live animals would also be much more readily established, ensuring that their welfare was properly considered. Corresponding checks for disease and quarantine controls would be more effectively enforced than can presently be the case. Many of our obligations as a signatory of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species depend upon controlling the trade at entry: checking that licences are in order, verifying their country of origin and intended destination and ensuring that certain species are not traded in. This is a difficult and a wide-reaching task. It would be made much easier by having limited ports of entry.
The only substantial change in the enforcement procedure proposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Bill is the provision to allow customs officers to inspect on demand the premises of licence holders where live

15
animals or plants which have been imported under licence are kept. That is good, so far as it goes, but it is not enough to overcome the current enforcement difficulties. Europe is currently one of the largest markets in the world for trade in endangered species. For conservation to be effective it is essential that these efforts to protect those species in their natural environment by their countries of origin are backed up by those countries, mainly in the industrial west, where the trade in endangered species is established. It was for this reason that we signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This amendment will help to tighten up the enforcement procedure and ensure that we as a nation meet our international conservation obligations. I beg to move.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I strongly support the amendment. I think we can congratulate ourselves upon having perhaps the best piece of legislation for the protection of endangered species of any country in the Common Market. There are some things that we are good at. There are other things we are better at than other countries. On those rare occasions when we are better than anybody else it is worthwhile noticing it, just for morale purposes, if nothing else.
I wish to stress that again we are dealing with living things. The problems over importing the products of endangered species arc difficult enough—obviously it would be almost impossible to channel those through designated points of entry—but for living species it is possible to do what the amendment proposes. Indeed, it is not only possible; it is already permissive, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said. We want to know from the Minister why the Secretary of State has not so far used the power that has already been given to him—this is important—before we insist that he should. We shall listen very carefully to the reply on that very point. Otherwise, we are minded to start the afternoon with a little show of strength, we hope.
It is important that every effort should be made to stop some of the scandals that we read about concerning the importing of endangered species from other countries. It is quite reprehensible that the RSPCA, for example, should have to keep a large unit of veterinary and other qualified persons at Heathrow to take care of the scandalous conditions in which many species are imported into this country. It is heartrending sometimes to read of the conditions under which birds and animals arrive. One wonders whatever possesses the so-called human beings at the other end of the line to cram these animals and birds into small spaces, thus killing large numbers of them before they arrive. This amendment would not stop all that, but at least it would enable better provision to be made for reception at designated points of entry. It would also enable the Customs and Excise officers to be more knowledgeable in identifying the kind of species which are banned and upon which they might have to take action.
I hope that the Minister has a convincing answer to the question why the power already given has not been used. He will have to be equally convincing in persuading us that we should refrain from imposing
16
this obligation upon him if we are of the opinion that the Secretary of State has not been as zealous or as imaginative as he should have been in using the powers already given by the 1976 Act.
Lord Craigton: The problem raised by the amendment has for a long time seriously worried both the conservation and the zoo world. I know that the cost of putting right ports of entry is very high—I have written to the Minister and suggested this—but, as the noble Lord has just said, I would ask the Minister to go as far as he possibly can in meeting, if not this amendment the spirit behind it. Each place of entry ideally needs adequate quarantine, adequate temporary accommodation and zoological and veterinary experts and customs officers able to differentiate between the species. We cannot hope that this will happen everywhere but there are ports where the position could be very much improved. From the point of view of the taxpayer, the fewer the authorised places of entry the better and the cheaper the control would become. Therefore I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In the RSPB we have been preaching this for years and have produced a great deal of information showing the appalling results of this not being done. Nobody in the Governments of either party has ever given a reason which satisfied me for one moment that a great deal more could not be done about it. I hope very much that we can be told that something more will be done.
The Earl of Onslow: Cannot the airlines in particular be prosecuted or made to enforce their own regulations when cases arise of the type which we see from time to time splashed across the national newspapers: birds, mammals, or whatever it may be being imported and being killed in large numbers in their boxes? This really is an affront. Can they not be held more responsible? That is the first question I should like to ask.
Secondly, I think one must put on record the excellence of the RSPCA hostel at Heathrow. It is extremely good and we should be very proud of it and thank the RSPCA for running it. But there is a caveat that I think one should enter. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Government accept at least the spirit of this amendment, and somebody uses a port or airfield without facilities for quarantine or veterinary examination. Will that not possibly produce a situation we have not foreseen? I just put that thought into my noble friend's mind before he answers. On the whole, I would support the spirit of this amendment if not the actual wording.
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would accept that at the moment, when there is absolutely no restriction on ports of entry, the problem he has mentioned is much more likely to arise than if the amendment is accepted and there is some protection.
The Earl of Onslow: I see the force of that argument as well.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We touched on this in a short debate on the question whether Clause 14 should

17
stand part of the Bill, and I am afraid that I must oppose this amendment. We have recently undertaken a review of the working of the whole of the licensing arrangements under the 1976 Act, and among all the various aspects considered was the question of whether points of entry should be designated for the importation of live animals. Your Lordships will be aware that a power enabling such designation to be made is already available in the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned. We concluded that there might be a benefit in designating ports of entry for certain species, but that the overall designation of ports would not be of value. There is the constant problem of what to do with live animals that turn up where they are not expected. It is not, for example, in the interests of the animals themselves to have them sent back or even diverted to another port. By the time they get there it may be too late. All the evidence from countries which operate blanket designation is that it does not aid enforcement to the extent that is sometimes claimed.
There have been recent instances, however, where we have used the power in the 1976 Act to place a condition on an import licence that the consignment be imported at a specified place and even at a specified time. This is an invaluable aid when we have reason to suspect that certain consignments may be irregular, and it is our firm intention to make increasing use of this device. There is a great advantage in that we can get all the exports at the port which has been designated on the licence, and we find that this works extremely well. If ports are designated it encourages people to bring animals in at other places clandestinely. So we believe this is a better system then designating ports.
Lord Melchett: I simply do not understand this. It is exactly the point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow; I did not understand it then and I do not understand it now. If you give somebody a licence and specify a place and a time, say London Airport at 11o'clock, and the animal turns up at Glasgow two days later—in other words, the wrong place is deliberately used, at the wrong time—does that not lead to exactly the same sort of problems as having a blanket designation of ports? I cannot see any difference.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: But they lose their licence.
Lord Melchett: But they will lose their licence if they do not go to a designated port of entry. If there is a limited number of ports of entry which are designated, of which Heathrow might well be one and perhaps there would be one other, if somebody takes live animals to any other port of entry they will lose whatever licence they might have had. I simply do not see the difference.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We are of course talking about endangered species. Eighty per cent of the animals that come in are neither endangered nor vulnerable, and it is really about endangered species that we are talking, where a licence is required. If we tie that to the port of entry and even the time of entry it probably gives as good a control of the situation as one could possibly get.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: But the two methods are in no way exclusive. Surely we should have both. The system of designated licences is admirable but it does not exclude the refusal to accept animals elsewhere than at a certain number of ports. I cannot follow the argument at all.
3.35 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Instinctively, a designated port is suggested, and the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, are very powerful. But what happens to a peregrine falcon if it lands in an aeroplane at Leith when it is supposed to land in an aeroplane at Heathrow, and the man has a one-off licence and it is said that it cannot land? What do you do with it? Do you send it back? Do you knock it on the head? That would achieve nothing, except that you would fine the man the equivalent of £5,000 which is the value of the falcon, or whatever it may be. It is a very difficult problem. Having listened to the argument, I think that my noble friend has power behind his case.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The first thing you do is to stop this particular event happening, because the person who sends it to the wrong place, for one reason or another, loses the value of the bird.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Of course noble Lords who are in favour of this amendment welcome the increasing designation of ports for specific licences. That is very useful and I am delighted that it is being done. It probably achieves a lot, but the Government have said nothing—although the noble Earl was making faces across the Chamber—which makes me want to withdraw this amendment. The point, validly raised, about animals possibly suffering because they come to ports where they are not allowed to come, is, I am sure, true. But I am quite clear that it will be well outweighed by the growing proportion of animals which come to designated ports and therefore are well looked after, and do not run into the kind of problems that we have heard about at other ports and other airfields.
Lord Melchett: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, will he accept that the position of an endangered species going to a port which is not designated in future, if the amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, will be absolutely no different from the present position? If somebody suspects that an animal is being illegally imported, it can be seized and placed with a competent zoological garden, just as happens now. There will be absolutely no change.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Indeed. Of course there will be problems, but they will be less if this amendment is passed—very considerably less—than if it is not passed. I do not take the other main point which was made about clandestine smuggling. All right, it may be that there will be some. I do not know quite what the Government have in mind. If they are speaking about clandestine smuggling at ports of entry other than the designated ones, it is difficult to see why it should be any more so than it is at the moment, and the chances of discovering a boa constrictor tucked away in someone's suitcase will be exactly the same as they are now.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I understand that in the United States of America they have had considerable difficulties as a result of their blanket designation. That is one of the reasons why we prefer the licensing system.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Perhaps the noble Lord would care to expand on that. What kind of difficulties have they had?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sorry, I cannot expand on it. All I know is that they have had difficulties and that is one of the reasons why we have decided on this as being a better system. I cannot say much more on this subject. The noble Lord either withdraws the amendment or he does not.
Lord Melchett: If the noble Lord cannot expand on the difficulties that they have had in the United States, perhaps he can confirm that they are maintaining the system of restricted ports of entry and not changing it back to the English system; so that they are not doing what the noble Lord is trying to do.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: They have not changed it yet, but it may be with our good example they will do so.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: If I may continue with my argument about clandestine smuggling, if the noble Lord is saying that this will be not at normal ports of entry but by motor boats from the French coast or something like that, I do not see that that would be any more encouraged if this amendment is passed than if it is not. I must admit that I am intrigued by what the noble Lord the Minister says about American experience. I wish we had been given greater information about this; it seems to me very germane to the Government's case, and after all it is they who are putting this Bill forward. I am surprised that they have not thought fit to enlarge upon this particular argument.
However, I am in some doubt as to how to proceed. It seems to me that in a way the noble Lord has said that the choice is between withdrawing this amendment and pressing it, and although I would be interested to hear the American experience, I have heard nothing in the Government's argument so far to cause me to withdraw the amendment. Therefore, I think we ought probably to try the feeling of your Lordships' Committee.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 242) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Blyton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Balogh, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Banks, L.

Brockway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Beswick, L.

Byers, L.

Blease, L.

Chelwood, L.

20

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Craigton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

David, B.

Melchett, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milverton, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pargiter, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Peart, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, B.

Gaitskell, B.

St. Davids, V.

Gore-Booth, L.

Seear, B.

Gosford, E.

Shinwell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Somers, L.

Gregson, L.

Stamp, L.

Gridley, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Strauss, L.

Henderson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Leatherland, L.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ampthill, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Avon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bathurst, E.

Lindsey of Abingdon, E.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Loudoun, C.

Caithness, E.

Lovat, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Clancarty, E.

McFadzean, L.

Clwyd, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Middleton, L.

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Derwent, L.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Radnor, E.

Effingham, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Savile, L.

Energlyn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Exeter, M.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Soames, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Spens, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gormanston, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathspey, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vickers, B.

Hanworth, V.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 243:
Page 54, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) In any proceedings for an offence under subsections (1)

21
and (1A) any averment that an article is a restricted article shall, until the contrary be proved, be sufficient evidence of that fact.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was dealt with along with Amendment No. 240. Therefore, I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 55, line 38, at end insert—

("Lorisidae Tarsiidae

Lorises, bushbabies Tarsiers").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 244 and, with the approval of the Committee, I shall discuss with it all the other amendments up to and including Amendment No. 271. I promise your Lordships that on this somewhat complicated matter, which I hope your Lordships will understand when I have finished—I think that I understand it—I shall not divide the Committee or seek your Lordships' opinion as to whether I am right or wrong. These amendments show yet another way in which endangered species can be better protected. They are suggested by that body which in the whole world knows best what is actually going on—namely, the IUCN body called the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit. That organisation monitors the trade movements around the world of endangered species protected by the Washington Convention. It has practical knowledge and experience of the difficulties of enforcement and of the evasion—often on a very massive scale—of the export and import provisions that nations seek, or should seek, to enforce.
As your Lordships will know, the Washington Convention, to which we are signatories, lists endangered species in two appendices. The species listed under Appendix I require import and export licences and as a result there is virtually no trade in the animals concerned. Appendix II aminals require licences for export only and there is more or less a free licence trade in them. As presently drafted Schedule 4, which is what I seek to amend, refers only to the animals listed in Appendix I of the Washington Convention. My amendments, apart from a few minor points to which I shall refer later, all suggest the same policy because, as your Lordships have heard when discussing the previous amendments, the schedule which I seek to improve is, I regret to say, virtually unenforceable. Those are strong words, but let me give two examples, and what I say in this connection is common to the whole series of amendments to which I am speaking today.
Asian elephants are in Appendix I and in Schedule 4. African elephants are in Appendix II and are not in the schedule. However, who can tell the difference in the ivory? I understand that it is impossible to tell the difference. Again, among the cats there are two sub-species of ocelot which appear in Appendix I. All the other sub-species of ocelot are in Appendix II and so they are not in Schedule 4. But the skins of the other sub-species are indistinguishable. One needs the skeleton to recognise one from the other. It is the skins that are traded in and the skins that we seek to protect are, in fact, being dealt in now by unscrupulous traders. So the ocelot as a whole is an endangered creature. The only safe protection is to
22
group all the Appendix I and all the Appendix II animals together, which is what I have done.
There are old world monkeys, new world monkeys, otters, cats, elephants, monitors and tortoises to mention only a few. I have reduced 85 names to 11. Thirty-one cetaceans and crocodilians are better covered by 12 names. Here is the safe, simple and easily administered way of protecting these creatures. That is the main point.
There are a number of minor amendments which I should put on the record so that the noble Lord when he comes to reply will, I hope, simply say that he notes what I say and will examine it and correct the Bill at the next stage. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 244. Bushbabies and tarsiers are on Appendix II and should be included to make the new schedule, as I suggest, complete. Amendment No. 251 adds the grey wolf. Appendix I of the Washington Convention contains the population of grey wolves from the Indian sub-continent. All the other populations are in Appendix II. The skin of the grey wolf is indistinguishable, wherever it conies from, and there is an error in having left the grey wolf off altogether, either with or without my amendment.
Amendment No. 262 is a fascinating amendment. Moschus moschiferus moschiferus, at the top of page 59 is not a Himalayan musk deer at all, or so I am advised: it is a Siberian musk deer. There are three species or sub-species on the two appendices so moschus covers the whole world population.
As regards Amendment No. 265, at the bottom of page 62 the Bill already does what I am seeking in that buceros bicornis embraces the whole species of great pied hornbill, so the phrase in brackets, "(other-wise known as …)" is, I am advised, incorrect.
Finally there is my late amendment, No. 251A. Schedule 4 refers to the Baluchistan race of Asiatic black bear. The Baluchistan race was originally on Appendix II but the CITES Convention in Costa Rica added the whole species to that appendix. So my amendment is to insert "selenarctos Thibetanus— Asiatic black bear" which covers all the Asiatic black bears, and that is correct as they are all now on Appendix I.
In these amendments, apart from the corrections to which I have just referred—and they are only really for the record—I have suggested grouping only where members of the endangered species are on the first or second appendix. With these amendments we go a long way towards affording protection, although I am aware that there are species, such as iguanas and birds, which are not in Appendix I and have been omitted from my proposals because some of the species are not in Appendix II either. So in moving this amendment and praising the new schedule as it stands, I ask the Minister how the Government, without my amendments, can hope to enforce the schedule as it stands. I do not know, and neither does the controller of the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking to all these amendments en bloc. I should like to say before going further that we accept Amendment No. 251A, which deals with a drafting error. I must say at the outset that the

23
species of animals listed in the Bill under the proposed Schedule 4 to the 1976 Act are those which are regarded as endangered. As my noble friend has explained, the list is that used under the 1976 Act and is basically Appendix I of the Washington Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Trade in the species on that appendix for commercial purposes is not allowed. Conversely, commercial trade in species not on that appendix is allowed.
It may also help noble Lords to see these amendments in perspective if I remind the Committee that all the species mentioned—and to be mentioned up to Amendment No. 271—by my noble friend are subject to full licensing control on import or export. For all parts and derivatives from these species that are considered readily recognisable by customs officers, there is also licensing control.
It is not the Government's purpose to restrict trade in species that are not in danger, and the effect of the new controls on selling is to ensure that without extending customs coverage of imports to a ridiculously wide range of goods, it is nevertheless not legal for a trader to make a profit by selling goods on the basis that they are worth more because they derive from a species in danger of extinction. I should be reluctant to add to the new Schedule 4 of the 1976 Act any species in which commercial trade is permitted under the convention. To do so would entail the consideration of a licence for the sale of these species or any part or derivative from them, and this would constitute too heavy a burden on legitimate trade and have no useful conservation benefit. Therefore, as we have the Washington Convention, by which we abide, we are not at all in favour of accepting any of my noble friend's amendments and I hope that he will withdraw them.
Lord Melchett: I followed what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, had to say as best I could, and it seemed to me that there was a great deal more in some of the points than the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, has given him credit for. For example, if it is completely impossible to tell the difference between two species of ocelot and if the noble Lord cannot do it, if I cannot do it, if the customs officers cannot do it and if no expert in this country can do it, how can it be sensible to list one as being banned from trade and the other as not being banned from trade? It simply makes the banning a mockery; it is a nonsense; there is absolutely no point in doing it. It would be sensible to take that off Appendix I, but of course the noble Lord and the Government cannot do that because they would be in breach of the CITES Convention. Therefore, it seems to me that they are saying "All right, we will obey the letter of the law, but we will make darn sure that it does not work in practice by not listing something which is indistinguishable from the species that we are banning from trade". That is just one narrow point of a number which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, raise, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, did not even begin to respond.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The basic point is whether or not we stick to the Washington Convention. If
24
what my noble friend has said about the "look alike" problem is true—and I have no doubt that it is—then it would be up to the Washington Convention to alter its appendices, because this is an international convention and we should all go with it. It is very likely that we would make that suggestion to the Washington Convention.
Lord Melchett: If that is to be the stance of Her Majesty's Government at the Washington Convention meeting in New Delhi and of this country internationally on world conservation matters, it is a deplorable state of affairs. We were one of the first countries to ratify this convention. Originally we introduced legislation to ensure that we could control endangered species by using a section of the legislation left over from the Second World War, in order that we could be in the forefront of setting an example to the rest of the world.
It seems to me to be deplorable for a developed and rich country like ours not to give some sort of lead to the developing world, where economic problems and economic pressures on people are far greater than they are in this country, bad though it may be here at present. For the noble Lord to say, "We will stick to the letter of the Washington Convention, even though we know that that means that our own domestic legislation is a mockery, is totally unenforceable, but that does not matter", surely is not the attitude that this country should take internationally on a matter like this, and it certainly is not the attitude that, so far as I am aware, this country has taken up to now.
The Earl of Avon: I have not yet spoken, although the Opposition Front Bench has spoken quite a lot this afternoon. Of course, we are going to Delhi with a good plan, and, of course, we are going to Delhi hoping to lead as we have done before. There is no doubt that this Government's attitude will be as it was at the last conference, and we hope to achieve as much and to lead as we did at the last conference. Having said that, we shall certainly read what my noble friend Lord Craigton said and of course we shall see whether we can adapt in some way. But I must back up my noble fridnd Lord Cullen about the Washington Convention; it is there to be our guideline.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that we must press Her Majesty's Government a little more on this recognition point. Let us assume that a chap comes before the customs officer with a load of ivory, puts on a blank face and says, "This is African elephant ivory" when, in fact, it is Indian elephant ivory. The customs officer would not have the slightest clue whether or not it was African. Surely, this is a matter about which we should do something, and we should not allow such a trade to continue. This recognition point seems to me to be the most important of all the points made by my noble friend Lord Craigton. Perhaps the Government could say, "Yes, we will go away and look at this; we understand that this is a major problem, and we must try to do something about it". If they do not do anything about it, from what I have heard it seems that a coach and horses could be driven through the legislation. Please will they go away and think about it constructively and hard, in order to put right this very important matter?
Viscount Hanworth: Surely the noble Lord appreciates that these international conferences frequently produce a result which is the lowest possible denominator. Surely we are interested enough in conservation to take a lead in advance of a conference. This is one way of achieving our object at a conference. It is quite extraordinary that the Government should shelter behind an international conference and will not take any action over these species where clearly the law cannot be enforced. It is a mockery.
Lord Melchett: In order to save time, may I say to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that I was extremely grateful for his response and for his commitment on behalf of the Government to look at this. I am sure that that will also satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Craigton.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Before my noble friend replies, I, too, should like to support what my noble friends have said. I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Onslow has said. I am sure that the Government are well aware of my noble friend's words of wisdom, but it is slightly annoying that their actions are dragging behind what is necessary. Surely it would be practical for the Government to table amendments before their noble friends and the Opposition do so for them.
Lord Craigton: I had rather anticipated the reply which my noble friend on the Front Bench gave. I wanted to raise this matter—and I am grateful for noble Lords' support—because we are genuinely and gravely worried about the question of the "look alikes". We wanted to bring pressure to bear on the Government to make them realise that this is not something which we can stand idly by and watch happen. There is the debate at CITES in New Delhi, and it is timely that this debate should take place now because I am sure that this subject will be discussed at New Delhi. My noble friend Lord Avon said that we will lead as before.
I do not know whether your Lordships know that at Costa Rica the Government representative—the civil servant concerned—with the assistance of the non-governmental organisations, achieved a most wonderful series of successes at the Washington Convention. We have much to thank him for and I am glad to hear that we shall endeavour to do the same again. I leave it at that. I am grateful that the Government have promised to look at this matter again. I thank the noble Lord for the Himalayan black bear. I think that we shall have to add the wolf because, likewise, that is a clerical error. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 245 to 251 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 57, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert:

("Selenarctos Thibetanus

Asiatic Black Bear").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 252 to 271 not moved.]
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 271A not moved.]
Clause 15 [Power to grant licences]:
[Amendment No. 272 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 273 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 274.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 14, line 35, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: Matters have moved rather quickly, and I beg your Lordships' pardon while I find the place in the Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: While the noble Lord is doing that, could I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 274 at the same time, because it is a modified version of the noble Lord's amendment?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am delighted that we should consider it at the same time if that meets the wishes of your Lordships' Committee. Mine is a more general and probing amendment. There is this worrying remark, statement, sentence at the beginning of Clause 15:
" Sections 1 to 8 do not apply to anything done—"
Then it goes on to list a number of motives for doing things which immediately give a blanket exemption from everything in Sections 1 to 8. Even if every single one of these purposes is correct it does not seem to be a very good thing. Admittedly it has to be done under, and in accordance with, the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority. But it is sufficient to say that there are whole areas here which give rather more leeway to the Secretary of State than one would normally have wanted in a Bill of this kind.
I have put down two amendments, one of which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Amendment No. 276. They are probing amendments to find out exactly what is intended by the Government, how they justify these particular exemptions, and to allow them to give what I think are very necessary assurances that the permissions that they give, and the licences they give, will be very limited, and will deal with specific points which they have already thought about and which they are now prepared to explain to your Lordships' Committee.
The first one I have chosen with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is paragraph (f). Licences can be granted to do anything in Sections 1 to 8,
"…for the purpose of providing food for human consumption or for poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese, or swans; "
I repeat,
"… for the purpose of providing food for human consumption ".
That seems fairly wide in itself, if it really does give blanket powers to the Secretary of State, and it is not necessarily acceptable as it stands. But the second half of it I do not understand one little bit. I understand,
"for the purpose of providing food for human consumption",
but I do not understand the second half. Is the grammar of this that it is,

27
"… for the purpose of providing food … for poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans;"
or is it even more recondite than that? Why indeed, if it means that, should you have to take special steps and give licences under Sections 1 to 8 in order to feed ornamental ducks? I am completely baffled by the second half of this, and I look forward with interest to the Government's explanation. I beg to move.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I speak to my amendment, which is the next one? First, I should like to agree with the generalities which the noble Lord put forward as to the whole of these exceptions. We want to scrutinise them very carefully and see that the exceptions are limited and, so far as possible, specific, and I shall move amendments to that effect a little later. In relation to this particular amendment it clearly is historical in some sense. It makes no sense in this country whatever. Because the collecting of any form of egg is forbidden, except for the collecting of gulls' eggs for human consumption, it should make that available by licence. We do not want everybody collecting gulls' eggs everywhere, but those people who wish to do so can perfectly well get a licence to do so. That is as far as it should go. The other things in the amendment, as the noble Lord said.
"… poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans;"
are entirely irrelevant and should be cut out, though my amendment is only to insert the one thing which is sensible; and I hope that of the two amendments noble Lords might prefer mine.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I should like only to strike a slight note of discord here. If this amendment means that everybody has to get a licence to collect gulls' eggs, I think that the Government would be in great danger of seeing this law disobeyed very often. That would be a pity, because this includes the eggs of the black-headed gull and a vast number of people throughout the country pick them up and eat them and sell them, and all the rest of it. The black-headed gull, as we all know, and the RSPB know very well, is a bird which if you take its nest the first time will go and lay a second nest. It is in no danger whatever of being in short supply. I hope that this amendment does not go quite so far as I think it does.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say a word on that? The intention of this amendment, and like that of the noble Lord it is a probing amendment, is that we want to stop the freedom given under paragraph (f) that if the purpose is
"providing food for … poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans; "
you cannot get a licence for it. We do not want to exclude the perfectly legitimate collection of gulls' eggs. I have no doubt that in certain areas for commercial collection it might be desirable to get licences, but for individuals collecting where there are plenty if a means can be found of making this all right, I should not object.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend answer this? As I read it, it means that you can apply for a licence to feed a black-necked grebe to your ornamental swan? Is that true? If it is, it seems a funny state of affairs. I may, needless to say, have utterly misread the clause.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: These exceptions subject to the granting of a licence go very wide indeed. I wonder whether somebody sat down to find all the possibilities of the situation and stick them on the list, because we come in a moment to,
" for the purposes of any public exhibition or competition; ".
Then we come to photography. I wonder there is not a paragraph at the end, "and for any other purpose not covered by the above". The wide descriptions of possible exceptions subject to licence suggest that somebody is contemplating very wide permission to escape the probitions of the new law.
When one looks at the principal clauses concerned I to 8 and 9 to 12, and then looks at the provisions here in Clause 15 regarding animals and birds, one wonders whether there will be any real protection at all. Considering that the licences can be granted as freely as some bureacracy decides, or depending on how ready they are to respond to strong claims for exemption, it seems to me that far too much licence has been given for the issue of licences. That is why 1 support the amendment relating to paragraph (f) and it may not be necessary for me to speak again on paragraphs (h) or (j). These conditions of licence need to be scrutinised with care because this is the final let-out in the Bill. While all the others that go before are quite extensive on their own, this is the final one because, subject to a licence, one can do all the things that are prohibited earlier in the Bill and listed under these various headings.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Surely at the end of the day one would have to convince the licensing authority that one had a case, and I have always found it difficult to convince civil servants that I have a case; they are always very well prepared by Ministers and people like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I think the noble Lord has missed the point. One cannot do it just because it says in the Bill that one is providing food for an ornamental duck; one must convince the licensing authority that it needs to be done.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I assure the noble Lord that I have not missed the point. It is just that perhaps he has greater confidence in bureacracy than I have.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has raised an interesting point. I have raised it personally and so far I have had no satisfactory answer. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment at this stage, and if I still do not have a satisfactory answer by Report, I shall ensure that the offending few words are removed—that is, not the gulls' eggs for human consumption part of it but the ornamental side of the amendment. As I say, I have been trying to find the answer but have so far failed to do so.
Coming to the gulls' eggs side of the matter, in particular Amendment No. 274, I do not know to what extent the Committee would like me to deal with general licensing at this stage, but this is an ex-

29
cellent example of where one would have a blanket licence for the collection of gulls' eggs. Later, when we come to specific licences—again an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I shall make the point that this is the sort of example where we do not want to be all that specific because it would obviously be impossible to licence everybody collecting gulls' eggs in Scotland. I would remind the Committee that in an earlier debate I explained that to sell gulls' eggs also needed a licence.
I assure the Committee that we do not intend to issue licences that would go beyond what is allowed in the 1954 Act, and of course none would be issued to allow the taking of eggs of species in areas where it could harm the conservation status of that species. However, we resist the amendment, as it would, among other things, prevent the issue of licences to take the eggs of the lapwing, which currently can be done before 15th April. There is not, we are informed, a conservation case for introducing a total ban on this traditional activity. If in the future it was shown scientifically to be necessary, licences would not be issued. I hope I have made myself clear to the noble Lord.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Yes, but I should like to see what sort of amendment the Government produce. There are difficulties here. I do not wish to make it illegal to pick up a gull's egg. On the other hand, I do not wish to agree to blanket licences, something that could be most dangerous, although we shall discuss that on a later amendment. I am therefore in rather a dilemma in knowing how to play this hand. It might be possible to have a licence covering a very limited area, or something of that sort, so that the collection of gulls' eggs, about which we heard such a sad story concerning Scotland, could be carried out in that area. However, this is a probing amendment and we shall be interested to see what the Government produce on this subject. On that basis, I beg to ask leave—
Lord Chelwood: First may I say a brief word about the lapwing? I remember that in 1954 and 1967 we had endless discussions about the taking of lapwings' eggs. That has not arisen yet, but obviously the taking of their eggs would be covered by the amendment and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this later in the Bill. As I understand it, under the 1954 Act is was possible to take lapwings' eggs before 15th April in any year and to sell them, but under the 1967 Act it was made illegal to take the eggs of this species before 15th April, and the sale of the eggs was also forbidden.
I understand that the EEC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds prohibits the taking of birds' eggs except under licence. That applies to all birds except those on the pest list. In future, therefore, it will be illegal to take lapwings' eggs at any time except by licence, and I presume the same applies to gulls' eggs for human consumption. It will be necessary, I understand, to have a licence to take the eggs of any bird other than those listed in Part II of Schedule 2. Licences will no doubt be given for those purposes, certainly for gulls' eggs and maybe for lapwings' eggs, but presumably—and I hope I am
30
right in saying this—they will be given to persons only if they can demonstrate that they have the landowners' permission and that there is no conservation problem. I shall be grateful if my noble friend can confirm at a later stage what I have said.
Lord Melchett: That emphasises the weakness of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that this would be a good case for general licences; if we are to ensure that the landowner's permission has been given, that of necessity must mean that licences are specific.
The Earl of Onslow: If a general licence were given subject to the landlowner's permission, that would not necessarily follow.
Lord Beaumlnt of Whitley: So far as my amendment is concerned—the one which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was trying to withdraw—I have some sympathy with him because I am delighted that the Minister is seeking an explanation himself. When he has got it, I trust he will share it with me, I hope in ample time for the Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 274 not moved.]
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 14, line 38, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Earl said: I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 278, 314 and 319, which are consequential. These are complementary and technical amendments which have the effect of transferring the purpose of preserving public health or public or air safety for the granting of a licence from paragraph (g) to the paragraph before (k). If this is done, the three public policy purposes will be listed consecutively. This sequence of listing will also accord with the sequence used in Amendment No. 52, to which your Lordship agreed as long ago as 27th January. The latter amendments, Nos. 314 and 319, adjust the appropriate reference in the context of the licensing authority and on consultation as a consequence of the proposed change. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am content to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 14, line 40, leave out paragraph (h).
The noble Lord said: This is, so far as I am concerned, another probing amendment, although the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, may have deeper motives than I have. The Notes on Clauses say:
" The Bill includes in Clause 6 a restriction on exhibition for competition purposes. The new purpose is included to allow the possibility of other birds, besides those in Schedule 3, being exhibited ".
That is a very wide little piece of legislation, is it not? to empower the Secretary of State to produce licences

31
in order to exempt from the whole of Clauses 1 to 8 for what is a rather small purpose. However, that is the wider question which I have already said something about.
On the rather narrower question, surely the correct way to deal with the possibility of birds other than those in Schedule 3 being exhibited is to expand Schedule 3, rather than to make possible this blanket exemption. I am a humble seeker after knowledge, and with those words I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I think that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, a little on this matter. This new purpose has been included as a consequence of the restrictions placed on the competitive showing of wild birds in Clause 6, which limits such showing to specimens of species listed in Schedule 3, Part I, and would permit the showing of captive-bred specimens of other species under licence, subject as usual to consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. We would not normally expect to issue such a licence for birds which have not been captive bred. As aviculturists improve their ability to breed certain species, this licensing provision will be of value in monitoring the progress of certain species from the category that cannot normally be freely exhibited to the ultimate addition to Schedule 3, Part I. That is something which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook may rather like. I hope that I have clarified this point sufficiently for the noble Lord.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Yes, indeed; I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 15, leave out line 1.
The noble Lord said: I made a general comment on this clause a moment or two ago. I should like to know in what conditions photography would justify the granting of a licence to do something which otherwise would be unlawful. What kind of situation is envisaged in the granting of a licence for the purpose of photography? Is it to kill something in order to take a photograph of it, or what? I am a little dim on this. I cannot understand why it is necessary to grant a licence to do something dreadful to a living thing—an act which otherwise would be unlawful, but which is justified if one has a licence for the purpose of photography. Any good ideas that come from the Front Bench opposite I shall be prepared to consider. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to say a few words on this point, since I have suffered from it in Scotland, where I have some very rare birds, such as the peregrine, the golden eagle, and one or two others. I am all for having photographers licensed. I understand that they will be licensed on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council by, I suppose, the Secretary of State, but will the landowner
32
be informed when the licence is granted? I ask that because I think of instances involving amateur photographers, many of whom come and ask, "Where is the eyrie?" If we do not like the look of them, we always send them in the opposite direction. Many people come along saying that they are ornithologists or are members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Of course they may be members of the society, but that does not mean that they are very expert at photographing extremely rare and shy birds. I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the landowner is told that people are coming to take photographs of his rare birds. I do not really understand how this works.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not see how it would work under a general licence; I quite agree. From the RSPB point of view, we think it desirable that most careful restrictions be imposed regarding photographing certain rare birds in certain rare conditions, and that it is done only under rather scarce licence. Apart from that, people who like to photograph birds can go to our reserves, where there is no landlord who has to be asked. From hides which we provide, they can, without licence, take what photographs they like of anything they happen to see. That is about as much as we can do for the bird photographers, I think, but the scientist must be looked after.
The Earl of Avon: The Nature Conservancy Council has been empowered to give approval to the photographing of wild birds since the offence of disturbing birds while nesting was created in the Protection of Birds Act 1967. There is therefore an established procedure for authorising photography. The offence of disturbance will under the Bill be extended from nesting birds to include young birds; that is in Schedule 1. There is a need therefore to modify the arrangements for authorising photography, and it is sensible to incorporate them within the licensing procedures. The availability of a licensing arrangement will enable the Nature Conservancy Council, as licensing authority, to determine who would be a suitable person to be allowed to photograph specially protected birds during for instance, the breeding season and to assess the circumstances in which photography should be allowed. I would submit that the alternative to a licensing system would be a total disregard for the disturbance of the birds—which I think some noble Lords have already been hinting at.
So far as landowners are concerned, the licence will enable them to see whether someone should be on their ground taking photographs. The licence also makes it clear that it does not give authority to enter land in circumstances which would be trespass. Bearing that in mind, I think that this photography is a process which, provided it is subject to strict licensing, is of benefit to people in all walks of life. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful for that explanation, and I am persuaded. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 15, line 1, at end insert—
(" ( jj) for the purpose of preserving public health or public or air safety; ").
The noble Earl said: I am grateful to my noble friends for having tabled this amendment. It is a logical consequence to the amendment to Clause 4 which has already been accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 15, line 5, after (" to ") insert (" livestock ").
The noble Earl said: I apologise to the Committee; I spoke to this amendment on the previous amendment, which was consequential. This amendment has been tabled by three of my noble friends. It is a logical consequence of the amendment which was made to Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the amendment is agreed to I wish very briefly to repeat some of the points that I made when this matter last arose. We can agree to this amendment only on condition that we are given a new definition of "livestock", and I want confirmation that we are to be given that. We do not agree to game birds being included in the definition of livestock because we think it is impossible to protect birds of prey, if a licence to shoot can be got if they take game birds which are being reared in the wild. This matter has been fully discussed, but it depends on the definition which we have not yet had. I wish to reserve my position on this matter, with all guns firing, in case something goes wrong later.
The Earl of Avon: The idea is that the definition that we now have of "livestock" will be withdrawn. There will therefore be no definition of livestock, on the grounds that the normal dictionary definition will be used, rather than a definition especially intended for the Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Does that mean domestic creatures? If it does, I am content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 15, line 5, after (" to ") insert (" sheep or lambs ").
The noble Lord said: We had hoped that the bronze medal which we had been given under Amendment No. 279 might have been extended to No. 280. I certainly feel that sheep and lambs should be included here, and I will not weary your Lordships by speaking any longer. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As an amateur shepherd of some standing, I am happy to agree to this.
The Earl of Avon: This really is consequential on the one before, because having put in, by Amendment No. 279, the word "livestock", sheep and lambs are of course included.
Lord Gibson-Watt: In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 15, line 5, leave out (" any other form of property or to ").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is again consequential on two amendments which have been accepted, Nos. 43 and 52. It would remove from the purposes for which a licence could be issued against birds the prevention of serious damage to "any other form of property". This removal is necessitated by the terms of Article 9 of the European Community directive. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Can my noble friend confirm that he is looking at the question of the words, "any other form of property ", in view of the precedent I gave him when we last discussed this?
The Earl of Avon: Yes. I think it was my noble friend Lord Stanley who told the Committee, when we were considering Clause 4, that he considered that the revised provisions in that clause would not adequately provide for emergency control to deal with all forms of serious damage if these words were omitted. We are looking at that again. We believe that all situations where control measures require killing or taking are covered by one or other of the purposes listed in Clause 15(1). However, I know of my noble friend's concern and I will let him know by letter if I am wrong.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 15, line 8, leave out (" appropriate authority ") and insert (" Nature Conservancy Council ").
The noble Lord said: We start a new topic of discussion here, and, if the Committee agree, I should like to speak to, first, Amendment No. 283, which is the amendment called, and also to Nos. 289, 293, 304, 308 and 316. The issue here, put in its bluntest way, is: is the right body to issue licences a body which represents one part of the community only? It is almost inevitable that at some time, however fair they may be, they will favour the farmer, whom they represent, rather than the nature lover or the conservancy lover, who will be asking for something. At the moment I think the relationship between farmers and nature lovers is not half bad. We have had very little trouble in your Lordships' House, and we have some fairly extreme representatives on both sides, of which I am happy to be one, though I also belong to the other because for many years I have made a living farming. But the fact remains that it is a highly questionable decision to take one department of government, which in many ways is the best of the lot (it is a jolly good department, and I have had to deal with it for years) but whose main interest is one particular side of the problem, and give it the right to check people on the other side who wish to go a little further.
We believe that the correct thing to do would be to give this right to the Nature Conservancy Council.

35
The Nature Conservancy Council is the Government's adviser on conservancy as a whole; conservancy includes agriculture, and is meant to include agriculture; so there would be no loss from the agricultural point of view. At the moment it looks as if, for various purposes under the Bill, there would be at least four separate Government departments empowered to grant licences; that is to say, the Secretary of State for the Environment himself, MAFF, the Nature Conservancy Council and also, presumably, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of Scotland, the Scottish Home and Health Departments and the Welsh Office. This is the kind of thing which is always apt to happen, and I think that a Bill of this kind is the sort of place where this ought to be straightened out and made absolutely clear.
Our earnest wish is that the granting of licences should be the duty of the Nature Conservancy Council in discussion with whatever appropriate department is involved. This means that you would always go to the same place—the Nature Conservancy Council has regional offices, and a telephone call to the regional office would deal with the thing—they could build up a case history of the way they dealt with this, which if you had several departments engaged it would be very difficult to do; and clearly you would get a much quicker answer than if you had to consult three or four departments. I really think it is unanswerable.
Certainly the EEC directive on the conservation of wild birds requires member states to send a report to the Commission each year on the implementation of Article 9. This is the article which allows for delegations (which are the things we have been talking about) under this subsection (1), thus making provision for the granting of licences; and, clearly, if one body were handling licences I think the report would be a great deal more accurate and probably a good deal more punctual than it would be if it was done in any other way.
There are one or two changes in current practice which, were my amendment to fail, would cause a good deal of concern among the voluntary nature conservation bodies and the many thousands of people who appreciate our wildlife. There is a considerable involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture in the licensing arrangements as presently drafted in the Bill, and I recognise that they and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland have a considerable interest, particularly where the potential exists for birds or mammals to seriously damage crops or property. But it must be recognised that their interest reflects the wishes of one group, the agricultural industry, out of many others who may be involved.
In the past the Ministry has not always had our unqualified approval when handling problems associated with such damage. The licensed culling of oyster catchers authorised by MAFF a few years ago springs to mind. The scientific evidence upon which the authority for the cull was based was conflicting, based on widely inaccurate figures and generally most unsatisfactory. I am pleased that the culling of oyster catchers at the Burry Inlet, at least, has now ceased. That is a very good example of exactly the sort of thing which should not have happened but which did happen.
I realise that there is an element of conflict of interest here, but I am in any case opposed to the granting of sweeping licensing powers which could be abused, and, as I have said before, in a short while I shall move amendments to deal with this. But I should like to look in a little detail at the position of birds in Schedule 1 to the existing Protection of Birds Act—those rare species which will continue, with minor amendments, to be carried forward in this Bill. In the 1967 Act powers were taken to enable licences to be granted to take or kill specially protected birds in order to prevent serious damage to crops or property. Such licences, however, would only be issued by the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate advisory committee on wild birds. Thus, a good case had to be made, and the evidence carefully and properly considered, before a licence could be issued to allow someone to kill one of the rare birds listed in Schedule 1.
But in this Bill the power to grant licences for such purposes will be extended to cover all birds, including the rarer ones, and the package handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture. This is a major departure from what already exists and works quite well. I find the prospect of this really rather daunting and, from our point of view, quite unacceptable. The Schedule 1 species are the ones for which we must make the maximum effort, allowing the birds to be killed only if all other solutions are tried and have failed. A cool, impartial and scientific assessment of the facts must be made. This seems to be a retrograde step.
If my argument is accepted that, on the grounds of efficiency and economy, one agency alone should handle the licensing, it seems logical that that should be the Nature Conservancy Council. The Nature Conservancy Council does not want these powers; they are not anxious to do this job. I can hardly blame them. They are not given enough money to do properly what they already have to do. But somebody must do the licensing and, surely, it is far more appropriate that they should do it. Why should it cost them more than it costs MAFF to do it? At worst, if the Government will not accept my view and would make a compromise, at least the Department of the Environment is, at any rate, neutral and has a responsibility for conservancy of a stronger kind even than that of MAFF.
I think the kind of argument which may be used against my point is that it is very likely that the most informed local advisers are the ADAS ones; but this Government have been constantly cutting them back, have reduced their strength very much and have been trying to encourage them not to do things outside their purely farming business. So I think that that argument falls to the ground. I feel strongly about this and I very much hope that we can be given some satisfaction from the Government over this which is the first really major point we have had this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I was interested in the approach made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I wonder whether my noble friend could help us. The Secretary of State must ultimately be responsible, I understand for issuing licences. Will they not therefore be issued by a Government department rather than an advisory body? If that is so, one could

37
achieve part of Lord Donaldson's objective by the department (whatever department it might be) issuing the licence on the advice of the NCC. This might be the right way. If I had to choose between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture then, as a countryman, I am bound to say that I would take the Department of Agriculture every time.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Before my noble friend replies, could I say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I do not agree entirely with the arguments which he has put forward. The reasons are these. First and foremost, the NCC is an agency and not any part of Government. As he himself said it is an advisory body. I know that the RSPB would like the NCC to take this on. Indeed, the noble Lord is producing the RSPB argument this afternoon. But we must look at past and present experience in this. If one looks at what happened in the Berwyn Mountains, it was there that the NCC, acting under great pressure from the RSPB, brought in something which was going to take over a vast area of Wales under an SSSI. This is just an example of how strong is the RSPB in the councils of the NCC. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that the NCC do not wish to take this on. I do not think it would be an appropriate job for them to do.
As to his argument against the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with this, I can only speak for the part of the world that I come from. I believe that the attitudes of the Ministry of Agriculture are not quite as he put them. I would say that the Ministry of Agriculture is far the best of the various authorities which he brought forward this afternoon. I will not say more except that I hope the Government will not accept this amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I, too, should like to support what my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Gibson-Watt have said about this. When the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that the last people who want these powers are the NCC, he was speaking words of gospel truth. The Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State, have the task of appointing this body. They are a very sensible, wise, advisory body. Advising is their function. I should have thought that in this country the last thing that we would want to do is to give a scientific advisory body actual, factual powers of saying yea or nay. You will make for them enemies they do not want. You will give them powers they do not want.
The Ministry of Agriculture is concerned with one of the main industries of this country, the production of food. Yet they are people who are of the country. They are well aware of where the laws of nature and agriculture cross. They do cross, we know. Sometimes, for more yield, one can do things which are not good for nature. The Ministry of Agriculture are not fools, I would suggest. I do not think they are peopled by hardfaced bureaucrats, but they are people who put on gumboots and get about the countryside. I should like to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in trying to press this amendment—and it is not just this amendment, but the principle we are coming to in future amendments—should not try to make two Government departments fight each other. The
38
Department of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture should be complementary. We must not try to create obstacles where they do not exist.
Lord Melchett: Could the noble Lord explain whether he is opposed to the NCC issuing any licences—which is what I take from his words? In that case, is he objecting to Clause 15(8)(c) where the Bill gives the NCC power to issue licences under a number of provisions of the clause? This seems to contradict what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, had to say and also some of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Home, made earlier.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I want to say a word about this. I feel strongly about it. In a long experience of farming, I have always dealt either with the Ministry of Agriculture in England or the Ministry of Agriculture in Scotland. I have never had to deal with the NCC and I think most farmers would find it rather strange if they suddenly had to deal with another organisation which they have never had anything to do with because no question of interference with conservancy had ever arisen. The Secretary of State for Scotland, whom the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned, is the authority which I think is the right authority to be used on this and other occasions where agriculture is involved. It is the same thing with the Ministry of Agriculture. I am all for consulting with the NCC if required and for their giving such advice if asked to do so but I do not think that they should be a licensing authority.
5 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: As some noble Lords know, I am a member of the NCC. I am not their spokesman but, naturally, my views on this particular subject reflect theirs, as we have discussed this matter at some length. May I for two or three minutes put on the record what generally speaking they feel about it or, at any rate, what I feel about it? I feel that the status quo should be maintained whereby the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Department remain the licensing authority for all purposes where a balance is needed between conservation and any other interests. The department currently exercises this role in local orders and through specific licences for Schedule I birds. The NCC, I feel sure, are willing to continue to administer those elements of licensing, such as licences for scientific research, ringing, marking or photography, which do not involve reaching judgments beyond those relating to the interests of wildlife conservation—in other words, only those things which are consistent with their present statutory role. A logical arrangement therefore would be for the DoE and the Scottish Department to be the sole licensing authority for those areas where the question of balance enters into consideration. That really ought to include agricultural damage. I do not think it is right that the Ministry of Agriculture should be judge and jury in its own case. They have a very special job to do for agriculture. I doubt whether they have the expertise or the capacity to ensure that the need for pest control was properly substantiated—at any rate, without the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council—that methods other than killing had been adequately

39
explored or that the terms and conditions of any licence were properly enforced.
I doubt very much whether that is really a job for the Ministry of Agriculture, though they are of course under an obligation to consult the Nature Conservancy Council if this job remains with them. The DoE has and should continue to have the primary administrative responsibility for conservation purposes for anything basically within the Protection of Birds Act. There is a major point which is that quite frankly the Nature Conservancy Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has admitted, do not have the resources. Even if we had them we would not want to do these jobs for which we do not have the knowledge or expertise.
I think that it would be rather ridiculous to expect the Nature Conservancy Council to issue licences for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety, which they are down for at the moment, for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease or for these agricultural purposes. That does not come within their remit. The Bill has the balance just about right, excepting that there is, so far as the Nature Conservancy Council is concerned, something in Clause 15(2)(e) which is right outside the responsibility of the Nature Conservancy Council:
" for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety ".
That cannot be the Nature Conservancy's job. I would have thought that the DoE should have that. I hope very much that the Bill will remain broadly as it is and that these very heavy responsibilities will not be put on a body which really is not appropriate.
Lord Milverton: I have my name down on this amendment. I hope the Government will consider it and, if they cannot accept it, then come back to it at Report stage. Having read the different matter on it, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it seems sensible that the Nature Conservancy Council should be given this task. It is appropriate and I cannot see why it should cause any ill-feeling in any way. In reading all the matter which I have read about it from different bodies, I would have thought that they should not be afraid to take this on. If they need more money, surely that is one body for which the Government should try to find a means of supplying the necessary finance.
Lord Somers: Having listened to the arguments, I am not sure that the Bill, as it stands, is satisfactory. Who is to know which the appropriate authority is? I should be hard put to judge myself. But I understand the objection to the Nature Conservancy Council being the licence-granting authority. It should be the Ministry of Agriculture in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council.
The Earl of Avon: May I respond to Lord Donald-son's Amendment No. 283 and speak, as he did, to Amendment Nos. 289, 293, 304, 308 and 316 first. On the territorial matters, the aim is to have a Great British licence and a Great British licensing authority as such. I feel that I should open by saying a few words about the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like to allay what I think are groundless fears by
40
assuring the Committee that the Ministry fully intends to operate on the principles outlined by my noble friend Lord Bellwin in the Second Reading debate; that is, that licences will be issued in accordance with policies which take account of the extent of damage caused, the conservation status of the species involved and the availability of alternate methods of preventing the damage. I should also like to say that there is an administrative agreement between my department and the Ministry of Agriculture that all Schedule 1 birds will be licensable by only the DoE.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: That is not in the Bill, is it? This is an internal agreement?
The Earl of Avon: If I could repeat myself, this is an administrative agreement; an internal agreement. Regarding licensing, my noble friend Lord Home asked whether the NCC could give a licence. I nodded the wrong way at the time. They can give licences. As my noble friend Lord Chelwood mentioned, they have been giving licences for photography and will continue to do so. As one or two noble Lords pointed out, the responsibility rests with the Government no matter which part of it is the licensing authority for any particular purpose. However, we have attempted to give the responsibility to that branch of Government which is best equipped to exercise it. Thus while licences for the photography of birds which are based solely on the scientific judgment has been allocated to the NCC, licences for precautions against spread of disease or the safeguarding of crops will go through the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, whereas for all other purposes they will go through the Department of the Environment.
The amount of scientific judgment varies between the purposes listed in the Bill and for example the purpose listed under paragraph (b) of Clause 15(8) are considered basically to involve no scientific decisions. However, for all these purposes—and this is an important point—there is a built-in requirement to consult with the advisory bodies just as now; a procedure which has worked well. Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the licensing authority, the Bill makes provision for consultation with the Secretary of State, and the NCC, and, as I indicated in the Second Reading debate, the final licensing decisions should represent the balanced view of all the relevant interests.
There is no question of anybody being judge and jury. The NCC is there to give all advice. That is their statutory obligation. I hope, bearing in mind these points, and considering the useful debate that we have had, that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will appreciate that we have thought the matter through and have done the best to satisfy the conservation interests while balancing it with the procedure which is now happening.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I take it that when my noble friend mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture he included the Secretary of State for Scotland, because that is the authority in Scotland.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I must inform the noble Baroness of one fact about which she seems

41
unaware: she has to consult the NCC anyway if she wants to do any works and claim grant aid if the land is an SSSI. Anybody in that position is already in touch. However, that is a detail.
I shall read what the noble Earl has said very carefully. He told me a number of things of which I was not aware. I am not absolutely certain where it leaves me. I do not wish to retreat totally. I have the feeling that when we come to Amendments Nos. 309 and 313, pressing those might have the effect I am trying to produce. I am not sure yet and I must think about it. For the moment, and until the next stage —giving us time to read what the noble Earl said—I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 15, line 8, at end insert (" in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State ").
The noble Lord said: In moving my amendment could it be coupled with Amendments 290, 294 and 321, for which the first three amendments are in fact paving amendments? The first three say in various places on this page that the words,
in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State ",
should be inserted. Then they are followed up in Amendment 321, which says:
" Regulations made under this section shall make provision for an appeal against refusal of a grant of a licence by the appropriate authority ".
There are very few things in this country where a seeming injustice may have been brought about by a decision where an appeal cannot be made to some authority or other. It is for that reason that my noble friends and I have put down this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking to this amendment and perhaps I might also speak to the other three amendments, Nos. 290, 294 and 321. These four related amendments would effectively oblige the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the procedure for the granting of licences for all the purposes listed in Clause 15 of the Bill.
It has never been the Government's intention to make licensing the subject of regulations. I appreciate the reasons why my noble friends have suggested this, but we believe it would be impracticable if not impossible for regulations to be made to cover every individual aspect of licensing. Each application will be different and the Government will have to consider, among other things, the applicant, the species and location, the time and proposed method of executing the activities to be licensed. The flexibility of the whole licensing system, which is illustrated by the list of aspects to consider, would be severely circumscribed by the rigidity of regulations to which licensing authorities would have to adhere. This does not mean that we have any intention of riding roughshod over any discipline or of acting improperly. I can assure my noble friends that we shall do our utmost to ensure that fair play and equal treatment will be given to all under
42
the licensing procedures and that all application will be decided on the same basic criteria.
Perhaps I might speak for a moment to Amendment No. 321 regarding the procedure for appeal against refusal to grant a licence. To do this would open the floodgates to a demand for appeals procedure against the issuing of licences for all manner of purposes. As in all administrative processes, the first round of appeal is to the licensing authority to reconsider its decision. This recourse has been open in the past and there have been several instances when they have been considered two or even three times. There are also cases when an initial decision has been reversed in the light of fresh information having been presented. Thereafter the powers of appeal, as now, lead a disappointed applicant to his Member of Parliament or to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The Government are satisfied that the system already in existence gives adequate safeguards to applicants for licences and ensures that there is recourse for those who are refused licences. I am equally convinced that there is nothing to be gained from enshrining this in the present legislation. I very much hope that, with these assurances, my noble friends may feel able to withdraw their amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: As the noble Earl has said, I think quite rightly, that he does not like regulations but has indicated that he will talk about possible guidelines, would it be possible to publish those guidelines or let it be known what the criteria are—I think "criteria" was the word used. I am not quite sure of the difference between criteria and guidelines, but they are probably the same. Could the criteria be published?—because if they were I think it could save a lot of time for the licensing authorities by cutting down the number of frivolous applications for licenses and it would also stop the application for licences by people who have no hope of getting them.
The Earl of Avon: I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I did actually refer to "aspects to consider" illustrated in this section; but I think that the Nature Conservancy Council might well wish to consider the idea of publishing certain of the basic criteria; and perhaps we might leave that to them to consider.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for what he has said, and particularly with regard to a re-application to a licensing authority to review its decision. In the circumstances I see that it is a little difficult for a Minister himself to be the court of appeal for his own department. In view of what has been said on behalf of the Government—and I am grateful for the explanation of the position—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 285 to 290 not moved.]
5.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 15, line 26, at end insert—
(" ( ) The appropriate authority shall issue a licence only if the person applying for a licence satisfies them that the purpose

43
of the issue of the licence cannot be achieved otherwise than by the issue of the licence.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to strengthen the conditions under which licences would be issued for certain purposes. I want to refer first of all to the EEC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds. Article 9 allows for derogations from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, which deal with the protection of birds—
"where there is no other satisfactory solution for the following reasons "—
and then the reasons for which they need to be satisfied that there is "no other satisfactory solution" but the granting of a licence relate to the interests of public health and safety, the interests of air safety, damage to crops and so forth. Those are the ones one would expect where satisfaction should be given that there is "no other satisfactory solution ".
Similarly, the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats has an article in almost identical words. Article 9 of that convention allows for exceptions to be made to the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 which provide protection,
" provided there is no other satisfactory solution "—
and again for purposes under the convention similar to those specified for the EEC directive. We do not have in this Bill so far words of that definite kind,
" where there is no other satisfactory solution ".
What we do have is something a little milder than that, and, of course, we have the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on what would be the Government's policy in the granting of licences. However, it would be better to include something in the Bill which is a little stronger, rather than to rely entirely on a description of how the licences would be granted. It has been suggested to me that an alternative to this amendment—a little weaker but more in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said—would be as follows:
" Page 15, after subsection (2) insert the following new clause—
' Before issuing an licence in respect of subsections (1)(k) and (1)(l) or subsections (2)(g) and (2)(h), the appropriate authority shall take account of the availability of alternative methods of control '.".
That might suit the Government better than the EEC directive and the Council of Europe convention. However, I hope that they will opt for the stronger alternative. But I keep the second, weaker version in reserve, in case I have to fall back on it at some sub-sequent stage.
All in all, the exceptions, the licences, the conditions of granting licences and the purposes for which licences are to be granted, worry me a great deal because, very often, these exceptions weaken the whole structure and purpose of legislation. I have seen so much of it in the statute law in my time in the hands of slack administration, or indulgence which was never intended at the time of passing the statute law, and I have seen the weakening of what was the original intention of providing some definite protection. That is why I feel it is quite reasonable to be pressing all the time against the possibility that licences, and the conditions for the
44
granting of licences, may err on the side of generosity to those who seek to have them.
This amendment has a perfectly reasonable pedigree. After all, it is in line with the EEC directive, to which the Government should pay some regard. It is also in line with the Convention of the Council of Europe, to which the Government should also pay some regard. The two together add up to support for this amendment, and I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will have something favourable to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be surprised if I say that I am not very keen about this amendment. It would, as he knows, cause considerable delay and, by the time we received our licence—if we did—the damage would be done. I would just draw the Committee's attention to the words:
" the licence cannot be achieved otherwise ".
It is not very often that I feel sorry for civil servants, but I would feel very sorry for them if they were trying to interpret that phrase, particularly if they felt that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was on one shoulder and I was on the other. It is asking a lot of them, although I know that we do ask a lot of them. But I really cannot support this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not feel terribly strongly about this amendment. I am entirely in agreement with what is in my noble friend's mind. In other words, if in considering the protection of crops against any kind of reserved animal there is a better way than giving permission to shoot it, then clearly a licence should not be given. That is common sense. I should have thought that the licensor would observe this anyway, but I should like to hear what the Government have to say.
The Earl of Avon: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. One is entirely sympathetic to the amendment. My main argument would be that it is rather unnecessary. I should like to open by saying that, of course, we understand the requirements of the European Community's directive and, indeed, have to comply with it and will do so. This amendment seeks to impose the specific requirement that an applicant for a licence shall satisfy the licence issuing authority of the need for its issue. But if we think of this deeply, the amendment is unnecessary as the licence-issuing authority responsible will not issue a licence if it is not required. In any case, it would be totally wrong to place the onus on the applicant who would not necessarily be aware of other alternative methods. The licence-issuing authority will have this information, and will advise the applicant on the use of these other methods before issuing the licence. I hope that that rather brief explanation may satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid that the noble Earl has not satisfied me. I was delighted to hear his reiteration of the Government's support for the EEC directive, and the fact that they will comply with it—as, indeed, under international law they have to do. He said that a licensing authority would not issue a licence if it was not required, but the EEC directive states that if there is no other satisfactory solution a licence should not be issued.

45
This may be a semantic point, but it seems to me that it would answer some of the worries that have been expressed about the licensing provisions in this Bill, if the words of the EEC directive—and the Government have been quite happy to import them into other clauses of the Bill, where it suited those interested in protecting agriculture and other things; and we made no complaint about that at the time—were imported into this part of the Bill. The words in Article 9 are that member States may derogate from the provisions of the directive where there is no other satisfactory solution. I should have thought that if those words appeared in the Bill, we could all be absolutely assured that we would stick to the EEC directive.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, I take the noble Lord's point. But I honestly think that the licence-issuing authority will have the information and will therefore advise the applicant on the use of other methods. I am rather back to front with the noble Lord on this amendment, but I will find out why we have not used the exact words and will have another look at it.
Lord Melchett: That would be helpful, because the noble Earl will find that a number of words from Article 9 have been incorporated into the Bill and, by the nature of things, it will arouse some suspicion if three or four words which look good from the conservationists' point of view are left out of the Bill, when all the words which look bad, about preventing damage to crops and so on, are put in. So it would be helpful if the Government would look at the point again, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will do so.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am always upset when the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is not on my side. That weakens my position greatly. My reply to the noble Earl is that I imagine that those who have crops, livestock, or other property, which may be exposed to the depredations of species that might otherwise have the protection of the Bill, will no doubt ascertain from the appropriate authorities beforehand what kind of situation will arise if their expected enemies fly over or settle on their land in large flocks and begin to gobble up the winter-sown wheat and so on. I do not think that farmers and others will apply for licences out of the blue, if some unexpected catastrophe or threat befalls them. On the whole, they will know what is likely to come their way.
However, I shall not delay the Committee any more. I shall be interested to know in due course why the words chosen were not those of either the EEC directive or the Council of Europe convention. Where we are dealing in words, we naturally like to rely on words which are of general application in a directive of this kind. It may be that there are alternatives to the words used in conventions, but it is better to stick to them if they mean sense to us and, in this case, the words of the directive do. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and, probably, will hear a little more about this at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 292 to 295 not moved.]
5.29 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 296:
Page 15, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert ("(a) shall be specifie; ").
The noble Lord said: I referred earlier to the fact that I should be moving some amendments on the specificity, as opposed to the generality, of licences and, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 295, 296, 297, 299, 300, 301 and 306, all of which apply to the same point.
The Earl of Avon: I did not hear the consequential numbers. However, the noble Lord mentioned Amendment No. 295, which has been withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am at fault. I meant to mention Amendment No. 296, which has not been withdrawn. I apologise to the Committee. That is the first amendment which I am pinning this group on to. Noble Lords know the general point which I am trying to make but I want to go into it in some detail. The licensing provisions contained in the Bill are wide. They differ in a number of respects from the arrangements contained in the existing Protection of Birds Acts with which, on the whole, we have been fairly satisfied. To begin with, the Bill enables licences to be granted to kill or take any wild bird in order to prevent serious damage to crops, property, et cetera. This will also apply to creatures otherwise protected in Clauses 9 to 12. This is an innovation of a derogatory kind from the point of view of the protected animal which we have got to look at very carefully.
My reaction was to turn to the existing arrangements under the Protection of Birds Acts to see how we have coped with the problem, if it existed, in the past. I have found that Section 4(2)(a) of the old Act provides a defence for persons suffering serious damage or wishing to prevent serious damage to crops, property and so forth to take action against protected birds other than those in Schedule I, which are the rare species. However, anybody who uses the defence provided in this section must, if challenged, be prepared to show in a court of law that his action was necessary. In other words, a farmer or other person suffering damage must think before he reaches for his gun, but not so long as to see his crop disappear. On the whole, this has been a reasonable, self-policing system. The new proposals, though they are not yet perfect, provide a framework upon which I hope and think we can build to produce a fair, workable and reasonable system.
One might have thought that the organisation which I have had reason to quote several times in these debates, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, would be hostile in their response to this principle of new licensing proposals. That is not the case. They tell me that in their response to the Government's consultations they supported a licensing system. They said that they had for a long time suggested, indeed promoted the idea of a licensing system to cater for species causing serious damage. However, they qualified their comments with two important provisos, with which I agree.
The first is that licences should be granted on an individual basis, and only on an individual basis,

47
each case being judged on its merits and clearly in relation to the seriousness and extent of the damage sustained or anticipated. The second is that the administration of any licensing system should be carried out at least on the direct advice of the Nature Conservancy Council. We have already discussed whether the Nature Conservancy Council should issue the licence. The noble Earl has said that he cannot arrange that. But at least it must be on their advice. We need to be very careful about the two provisos.
The point of the Bill is to protect wildlife. We must keep a reasonable balance between the commercial man and wildlife itself. In the alleviation of damage, or potential damage to crops or property one must certainly consider the wise and judicious use of deterrents, or wise husbandry, to prevent damage. Allowing somebody to shoot the offending protected species is only a very small part of the answer, and a last resort answer at that. In a sense, this emphasises the last amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is most important that the licensing-administering body should have advice available on the deterrents to prevent damage. Only if these have been tried and have failed and the likelihood of serious damage has been demonstrated should a licence to kill birds be issued.
This sounds much more difficult than it is. Most farmers always do this first before they go for a licence —and if they do not they ought to. So they ought to be able to telephone the regional office, or whoever gives the licence, and say, "I have done this and I have done that, but I cannot get rid of them. I now want a licence to use one of the derogated methods ". I cannot see any problem about this. I think that the noble Earl will say that this is the position. If so, I shall be relieved.
That being so, let me repeat what I said earlier: I see no justification whatever for the issue of general licences. Clause 15(4) states that a licence may be, to any degree, general or specific and that it may be granted either to all persons, to persons of a class or to a particular person. My amendments say, first, that it must be specific and, secondly, that it must be to a person. There are a number of consequentials. However, that is the important point.
Under the Bill as it stands, the licensing authority would have the power to grant a licence to all of the farmers in Southern England to take action against brent geese—and furthermore, indefinitely. This is exactly the kind of thing which would save trouble for farmers but which from the conservation point of view is not acceptable. It is absolutely reasonable that if there were a plague of brent geese in a certain crop area a special licence should be given to one, two, three or half a dozen people. That is quite different from a general licence being given to kill brent geese north of the Humber. It is a very extreme result and one which we must oppose.
To give an example, a general licence to allow herons to be destroyed at fish farms would remove from fish farmers the onus to design their farms in such a way as to minimise heron damage. There is a great deal of information on how to do this. If you were foolish enough to grant a general licence, nobody would then take the trouble to do that. A general
48
licence would be very little different from placing the bird in Part II of Schedule 2. Those are the species which may be killed or taken at any time—the pest list for the said area. It could be worse, for at least those species are stated clearly in the Bill. If general licences were granted, how would enforcement authorities or the general public know if the bird was the subject of a general licence, or what were the conditions of such a licence?
I do not want to flog the case. What I am driving at is fairly clear. However, I cannot understand how with such a loose arrangement, the Government believe that they can fulfil their obligations under Article 9 of the EEC directive. My amendments would allow the issue of licences where damage has occurred or is likely to occur. Nobody can object to that. General licences would not be issued and the conditions laid down in Article 9 of the directive would be adequately covered. I have said sufficient to show what is in our minds. There may be a middle course between my objections and what is contained in the Bill. I shall be glad to hear whether the noble Earl has anything to add. I beg to move.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am surprised at what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said. This is a question of principle. The trouble with the noble Lord is that he has no trust whatsoever in anybody. These licences will be granted by a licensing authority. I happen to have enough faith to think that licences will be granted only in reasonable cases. There are going to be cases when the licence will have to be general. May I quote an extreme example, as did the noble Lord. There would be need for a general licence in Anglesey against greylag geese.
I will make only one other point because I hope other noble Lords will support me on this. The noble Lord said "Indefinitely granted" but I do not see that. The licence could be granted for a day or a week or two months, but I do ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to have a little more trust. I am sure we should then all get on much better.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not see how we could get on better. I do not trust people whose commercial interests are affected. I have never found them to be trustworthy in any way. They look after themselves and not the other man. This is not the Christian doctrine but it is adopted by everybody I know, Christians or otherwise. I would even say socialists or otherwise and we may as well expect no more. Really, the whole of this clause shows lack of trust; it is derogating certain things to which Clauses 1 to 8 will not apply. One might as well say, There is no point in putting this down; let the licensing people do as they think fit ". The greylag goose in Anglesey is a very good example. I do not believe for one moment that if you wish to protect Angelsey crops at a certain period from the greylag goose it is necessary to do it for the whole of Anglesey. I do not know how many farms there are in Anglesey but it cannot be a large number. I know the area fairly well and I should have thought it would have been possible to have individual licences for a fortnight when the crop was

49
ripe, or whatever might be the appropriate period, and that is exactly what my amendments would make possible.
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, at all in his argument because if we read the whole of subsection (4), and in particular paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), we find that it seems to take account of everything that he is concerned about. The licence, although general, could have specific conditions attached to it. It could be modified or revoked at any time by the appropriate authority and it could be valid for a limited period of time, so what is he concerned about?
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and others have suggested that there is not much to worry about and that we all ought to trust each other. Of course, we do, but nevertheless, having done that we are still concerned about the intentions of the Government and others if this power to grant general licences is retained in the Bill. I think my noble friend dealt effectively with the one example which we have been given so far of the need for general licences; the other example which the NFU have actually given their own members is that under the Bill they are assured that there would be a general licence issued to everybody in South-East England to kill brent geese whenever they need to. That has been published by the NFU and it is apparently an assurance which they have been given. That is a general licence to cover all brent geese anywhere in southern England at any time they want to kill them. That is an appalling state of affairs. That is why there is some suspicion, worry and doubt about this provision in the Bill.
We had a long discussion in this Committee about brent geese and whether they needed the protection which they are given under the Bill. The amendment which suggested that they did not was withdrawn, with Government support against it, and now this provision simply makes the whole of that discussion worthless. What was the point of it if the NFU have already been guaranteed a general licence to kill brent geese in South-East England? That is why we are worried about the provision.
The Earl of Caithness: But if the Nature Conservancy Council says to the Secretary of State, "The farmers are disobeying the conditions of the general licence" surely the Secretary of State would merely revoke the licence.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I would rather play it the other way round.
The Earl of Avon: I think it really is a case of which way round we play this particular one. The noble Lord mentioned herons and if I may take that as a specific point of the policy on licences for each species, it is the intention that it will be worked out with the NCC, with MAFF and with my department and for herons it is expected that licences will be granted to individual fish farmers and only when other types of deterrent have already failed.
To answer the other point put by the noble Lord opposite there has been absolutely no guarantee to the
50
NFU about brent geese. Licences for brent geese are under discussion and if they are considered it would probably only be to individual farmers who are affected and it would not be an umbrella licence.
The idea behind this paragraph is flexibility, as noble Lords know perfectly well and the amendment tabled would make specific licences necessary in cases where the Government think that it is not justified. I think the great safeguard is the duty which is there to report annually to the Commission on the derogations authorised under Article 9 of the British birds directive, which would mean that the Government would have to justify the licences issued. Equally I should like to ask the noble Lord who proposed the amendment to give some idea of how we get round the general licences which we arc thinking of. For instance, if there were some pest birds in Schedule 2, Part II, and one wanted to cover them in a particular county, or something of that nature, also gulls' eggs, which have been mentioned, and fruit farmers in connection with which bullfinches have come up in our discussions on other occasions—how are we going to cover these if we cannot use a general licence? This is why the Government do not want to be tied down to the word "specific".
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not myself see the difficulty. If we take fruit farming, for example, it is entirely in areas; it is usually a matter of under 30 farmers over a very large area, not all of whom grow the same fruit. I should have thought the bullfinch was admirably suited to a specific licence to be issued to a specific farmer on a specific farm. I think they would want to get it extremely quickly, and that is one of the reasons why I am sorry that my suggestion about the regional offices of the Nature Conservancy Council has not been accepted. I do not see a problem here at all. I do not understand why the noble Earl, having said that he would be specific in his opinion at this stage in regard to brent geese in the South of England and would not want to issue a general licence, should want to be able to issue a general licence in other cases. I do not believe that is necessary.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The discussion so far has concentrated entirely on birds, but if I am not mistaken we are also concerned with other animals, including those which are in Schedule 5. We know that the red squirrel has been added to Schedule 5 and the schedule already contains seriously threatened mammals and other vertebrates and invertebrates. May I seek assurances, for the record, that the licensing system will be equally particular where it is applied to non-bird species?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, if the noble Earl considers a general licence to be particular, it will.
Lord Melchett: I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is satisfied with that but it seems to me to be the exact opposite to the assurance he was seeking. Of course, that is the problem. If we have this particular form of words in the Bill we are obviously going to use it and the examples given by the Government all seem to me to be perfectly good places where a specific licence could be issued. In the

51
case of a fruit farm, most people who are growing soft fruit which is liable to suffer damage from bullfinches will know in advance when there is a risk to the fruit. Farmers are not stupid in that way and they will be able to apply in plenty of time. The Bill already allows one to apply for a licence if damage is anticipated. It does not have to have occurred or to be occurring; all that one has to show is that it is likely to happen in the future.
I do not think that the Government, in sticking to this extraordinarily general and unqualified form of words, can seriously put forward the case that they are sticking to the EEC directive. In Article 9(2) the directive says that the derogations (which is what this licensing procedure is) must specify the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted. It semed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to some extent recognised this in his Second Reading speech when he said that it was misleading to think of a general licence allowing anybody to kill anything of a certain species in a certain area, which was certainly how the NFU had viewed the possibility of getting licences to kill brent geese. The noble Earl has reassured us on that. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, at Second Reading, said:
" The licence will be limited to that group of people and will be specific as to the species to be killed, the period of time, the area of the country and the purpose and method of killing for which it is valid ".—[Official Report, 16/12/80; col. 984]
It seems to me that in that there may be the possibility of a compromise. If the noble Earl is saying that that is what a general licence means, would it be possible to put Lord Bellwin's words in the Bill? Then we would not be worried about the blanket licences which run for any period of time, apply to any number of people for any reason whatsoever, for anybody to kill anything they want to kill.
The Earl of Avon: I was getting perturbed that the specific licence was almost reaching my general licence. Obviously we want to retain the word "general". I take the point made by the other side. I do not think I can say that I am going to consider it again, but I shall read in detail what has been said and see if we can get a little closer, because we are very close on this.
Lord Melchett: I would not like the noble Earl to read what I said, but if he could read what his noble friend Lord Bellwin said at Second Reading and see if those sentiments could be incorporated into this clause in qualifying the word "general", I think that would go a long way to meeting the worries that have been expressed in this connection.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With that particular assurance which I think has been granted, that at least the noble Earl will look at what his colleague said, it seems to me that if those words could be added to the definition of "general" we should be fully satisfied. In any case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment until such time as we have an opportunity to hear what the noble Earl's conclusions are.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 297 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 298.
[Amendments Nos. 297 to 302 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 303 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 304 or 305.
5.53 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 15, leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Earl said: It seems to me rather peculiar that a charge is going to be required by the appropriate licensing authority. This amendment is a probing amendment; I should like the Government to explain their view on this matter a little further. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: It is the Government's policy to ensure that they are not inhibited by law from making charges for issue which place additional costs on all taxpayers for the benefit of a few where such charges are appropriate. This provision does not itself mean that licence fees will necessarily be levied but it is considered essential that the Government should not be restricted in their ability to do so.
This is rather a brief answer, as I was expecting to have a rather longer discussion on this subject. My noble friend said that this was a probing amendment and I am not quite sure in which direction he wishes to probe. If I have not given a sufficient answer perhaps he could explain further.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If the noble Earl wants further discussion far be it for me to deny him. I thought the opposite was the general direction required. I would only say that it is the normal thing in the social services or anything of that kind—agriculture, for instance—that if you are going to ask for a grant you should pay the necessary expense of getting it, and I see no objection to it at all.
The Earl of Caithness: What I was trying to get from the Government was whether they have any proposals at the moment for making a charge, and if so how much? If they make the charge, will this delay the granting of a licence?—because as we discussed earlier, this could be a critical question of timing for the farmer.
The Earl of Avon: I thank my noble friend for clarifying the point. This matter is under discussion at the moment. I will make sure his point about timing is fed into the discussion if it is not already there.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 304 not moved.]
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 305:
Page 15, line 41, at end insert—
(" Provided that no such charge shall be made in respect of the grant of a licence—

53

(a) for the purpose of preserving public health or public or air safety;

(b) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease; or

(c) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries.").

The noble Lord said: My noble friends and I who have put this amendment down really think it is a bit much that when people are asking for and getting a licence for the specific purposes under (a), (b) and (c), they should then have to pay for the licence. Are we honestly saying that if a fish farmer is plagued with herons and gets a licence he has got to pay for getting rid of half a dozen herons? Are we honestly saying that if a fruit farmer is bedevilled by bullfinches he should equally have to pay? I really think those concerned with this Bill are going to have quite enough time and trouble understanding the Bill, a point made earlier on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Margadale. I think it is outrageous that they should have to pay for a licence. We all of us as taxpayers pay for having these various people working in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Environment so that they can do just this sort of thing. I really think it is too much that private individuals should have to pay for this type of thing. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not want to get involved in this because it is between two Members on the same side of the Committee. I would only like to say that if something costs money to do and is for your benefit there is absolutely no reason why you should not pay for it.
The Earl of Caithness: Is it not for the benefit of the consumer, because the farmer is producing crops and if those crops are under attack it means the price of food might go up.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If he does not get a licence, he will not be allowed to protect them under this Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I hope my noble friends will be satisfied with the same answer as I gave to the previous amendment. This matter is at the moment under discussion. I have been reading the documents which have so far been produced, and I have not seen a suggestion on the lines of my noble friend's. I will make sure that these suggestions are brought to the attention of the appropriate people and undertake that we do look at this.
Lord Gibson-Watt: With that assurance, I shall be glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 306 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 307.
[Amendment No. 306 not moved.]
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 16, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble Lord said: This is only to say that I do not believe that if a licence is given to a person it
54
should automatically be given to other persons at the same time. I am being rather specific about this. With those few words I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say how grateful I am for the noble Lord's support?
The Earl of Avon: We have already spoken to this subject in some detail. This amendment relates to, and seeks to delete, one of the aspects designed to achieve flexibility in the system—the proposal that a licence may be issued to enable a person to authorise others to undertake the activity specified in the licence. I can assure your Lordships that we do not intend to use this power to do some of the more extreme things which have been bandied about. As I said, it is designed to give an extra flexibility to the system. If I may give an example, we might wish to make an arrangement whereby the British Trust for Ornithology could authorise its qualified members to ring birds. The alternative to this would be a welter of individual applications, with all the attendant bureaucracy. That is not, of course, what we want and, with that in mind, I hope that I have said enough to persuade my noble friends that the Government really would rather like to keep this in the Bill.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I think that it was he who was supporting me and I shall naturally look forward for a quid pro quo later in the Bill. However, I am very glad to accept what my noble friend has said and that the Government have a strong view upon this matter. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is No. 308. I must draw to the Committees' attention that if Amendment No. 308 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 309, 312, 313 or 314.
[Amendment No. 308 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 309:
Page 16, line 25, leave out from ("under") to ("(1)" in line 26 and insert ("paragraphs (a) to (i), (k) and (l) and under paragraphs (g) or (h) of subsection (2)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 309. With this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 312 and 313, and also Amendment No. 315, because they all go together. The purpose of these amendments is try to simplify the definition of "the appropriate authority" very much along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, suggested when we had an earlier debate about making the Nature Conservancy Council the appropriate authority throughout these licensing provisions.
This series of amendments does not go that far, but what it does do is to seek to make the Secretary of State for the Environment, or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the licensing authority with advice from whichever of the advisory bodies the Secretary of State sees fit to consult, or from the Nature Conservancy Council. That is the wording

55
in Subsection (8)(a) on page 16 of the Bill. It removes the licensing power from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It seems to us that, even if the Government are not prepared to go as far as making the Nature Conservancy Council the licensing authority for all purposes under the Bill, there are some very strong arguments in favour of some rationalisation and simplification as to which is actually the appropriate authority; and that, as I think more than one noble Lord opposite said in our previous debate, the Secretary of State for the Environment would by and large be seen as holding the ring in a fairly fair way between the competing interests of agriculture and conservation—and there are, of course, competing interests here. There is the economic interest of the farming community and the interest of those who wish to protect very rare species, whether birds or other things listed in the Bill, from being killed. Those who wish to see them protected wish to see them protected even if they do cause some damage, and those who are farming wish to see them killed even if they are very rare. There is a serious conflict of interest which I do not think any of us ought to hide or be ashamed of. It is a perfectly natural and respectable conflict of interest. But, given that, it does seem to some people involved in the conflict a little unfair that, as it were, the main protagonist for one side should be in the business of issuing licences for these very rare and protected species to be killed if they are causing the sort of damage set out in subsection (2)(h) on page 15.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, with advice from various bodies, as I understand it, has always provided a perfectly satisfactory service as regards issuing licences in the past. Whether we tighten up the wording of the general licences or not—whatever we decide about that—it would nevertheless be the case that under this Bill there would be far more licences issued for far more purposes than has been the case in the past. I would suggest to the Government that we run the risk of opening up an enormous area of conflict and controversy with the Bill, unless the people making the decisions arc seen to be reasonably fair and impartial to both sides of the conflict.
That is not the case under the Bill at present. The Ministry of Agriculture quite rightly and properly is seen a acting entirely in defence of agricultural interests. I am very glad, as a farmer, that they do that, and I would not wish them to do anything else. But, in those circumstances, I do not think that it is fair to them or to anyone else to see them issuing licences for the destruction of very rare birds, simply on their own say-so, as is currently the case under subsection (8)(d). Therefore, I hope that these amendments will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not suppose that the noble Lord Lord Melchett will be surprised if I say that I do not think that the amendment is a very good idea. In my view, the Ministry of Agriculture are the best people to look at this problem with regard to pests. I think that if—
Lord Melchett: I interrupt the noble Lord to say that we are not talking about pests: we are talking about
56
the most endangered and rarest birds and animals that we have in this country.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The point is taken, but on these particular occasions they will only be able to be destroyed if they cause a nuisance. I think that the noble Lord has taken that point. In my view, the Ministry of Agriculture are the best people to deal with this matter. If it is given to the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment, it must be remembered that they are not really involved with crops and I can foresee that the first thing that they would have to do is to rush round from Marsham Street to Horseferry Road to find out what was happening. I do not think that that is a particularly good idea. It takes time and adds bureaucracy.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to keep jumping up and interrupting the noble Lord, but is he implying something which I find very worrying and an example of the lack of even-handedness, if I may say so, of the noble Lord's approach; namely, that the Minister of Agriculture will not consult the Department of the Environment or the Nature Conservancy Council? Whoever does the consulting, the same distance has to be travelled.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord is trying to tie me up and he is very welcome to do so. Let us face it, the first people that they would go to is the Nature Conservancy Council and not necessarily the Secretary of State. I think that the Nature Conservancy Council must be the first people. Indeed, they are duty bound to consult them.
Lord Melchett: No, they are not.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: They would do so. The noble Lord is interpreting me wrongly in thinking that if it were a rare animal they would not consult. It says "shall" consult. If there is a rare bird that is harming crops no responsible official of the Ministry of Agriculture is not going to consult the Nature Conservancy Council—of course, he will do so.
I shall make my final point, which I am sure will annoy the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Farmers know their Ministry of Agriculture office better than they do their Department of the Environment office. They are much more likely to go to the Ministry of Agriculture office. I am not saying that farmers would break the law, but I think that there might be a tendency, if they had to go off to their Department of the Environment office, not to ask. Furthermore, if a farmer goes to the Ministry of Agriculture—and we come down to a principle here and says, "I want a licence for this", I truly believe that the man there—whether it be an ADAS man or whoever—will say to him, "Look here do you really need to kill this bird? Do you realise that there are only 24 in the country?", and the farmer will listen. I am doubtful about him listening to the Department of the Environment. However, I shall not go on about that. I have been in trouble in this House previously over the Department of the Environment.
The Earl of Avon: I congratulate the noble Lord

57
opposite for making what really is an excellent speech on a subject which I think we have been over once before, and for putting forward such novel views. I think that right at the beginning I must emphasise that the Government feel that it is entirely right and proper that the Ministry of Agriculture should have a responsibility for licensing which is connected with serious damage to crops.
The Government have endeavoured to give the responsibilities for licensing to the Government departments best equipped to exercise them. That is our ploy. The Bill makes provisions, as I have said previously, for consultations between the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the advisory bodies to be set up under Clause 21. As I indicated during the Second Reading debate, the final licensing decisions should represent the balanced view of all the relevant interests, and this will, I submit, meet the objectives of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have moved this amendment. I do not think that I can say any more without going over ground which I have already covered.
Lord Melchett: I think that it is a slightly different point to want to have the Nature Conservancy Council as the licensing authority throughout the Bill and simply to want to transfer the responsibility under two of the paragraphs in subsection (8) from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was an attempt to meet some of the noble Earl's objections to the earlier amendment.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry, but I forgot to say anything about the NCC. As noble Lords know, we have given the NCC one factor on which to do their licensing. I understood from what my noble friend Lord Chelwood said that the NCC could not cope with the licensing of all this.
Lord Melchett: That is exactly why I moved this series of amendments, which does not put any further burdens on the NCC, but which asks the DoE to do this, having listened the MAFF on the one hand and the NCC, or whatever advisory body it would be, on the other.
A serious point arises here. I do not think that the Government are being fair, and they are certainly not being seen to be fair. The NFU and the farmers may be very happy with the proposals that are contained in this clause; indeed, they are. In fact, they say that they can accept the Bill to the extent that we have debated it so far because of the new licensing system introduced in the Bill. The NFU goes on to say:
" The new system allows the Ministry of Agriculture to grant licences which could override many of the prohibitive measures in the Bill".
In fact, it could probably override almost all of them. Anyhow, the NFU is being modest about this and says that the new system could simply override many of them. It goes on:
" The licences may be general or specific, as deemed appropriate ".
It goes on to give examples.
" A farmer could therefore be given a licence to use poisoned baits or any other prohibited methods, provided that he could
58
put a case to the Ministry (that is, the MAFF) proving his need to use such a method. Equally, any farmer could seek a licence to kill or control any of the protected species, provided that he could prove to the Ministry (that is, the MAFF) that the birds or mammals in question were, or were about to be, a pest in his particular locality ".
The NFU publication goes on to say:
" If necessary, the licences can be issued to all farmers within a certain region ",
which I have mentioned before.
" As an example, it is anticipated that a general licence will be given to all farmers in the south-eastern counties to control brent geese ".
It is on the basis of statements of that sort and the feeling that has been around since the consultation on this Bill began that there has been a good deal of giving of nods and winks by the MAFF to certain people who are interested in the Bill about what they will do once they get these licensing powers, that the suspicions have been mainly aroused.
The Government must hold themselves responsible for that. Quite clearly, they could meet this point by allowing someone who is evenhanded and not seen to be biased by either side, to have the power to grant the licences. That would be the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment who, after all, is a Member of the Government and who is as bound by the advice of the MAFF as he is by the advice of any other Civil Service department. If the Government are not prepared to accept that, it seems to me that they are bound to be accused of unfairness and partiality, and I do not think that it would be a good thing to leave this in the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I have said before that the Government are the Government and, therefore, speak for both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, we say that we speak with one voice. I have also said that the NCC is the advisory body for both the MAFF and the DoE. The Government will take advice from all three bodies at all times. I do not think that I can go further than that. We have great faith in our Ministry of Agriculture.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 309) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Bernstein, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Diamond, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McCarthy, L.

Foot, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

59

Melchett, L.

Stedman, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stone, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Peart, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winstanley, L.

Segal, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Allerton, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Balerno, L.

Loudoun, C.

Bathurst, E.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McFadzean, L.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Chorley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cockfield, L.

Middleton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mills, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Daventry, V.

Newall, L.

de Clifford, L.

Northchurch, B.

De La Warr, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Soames, L.

Gisborough, L.

Spens, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swansea, L.

Halifax, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Thurso, V.

Inglewood, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ironside, L.

Tryon, L.

Keyes, L.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimberley, E.

Wise, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 310 to 313 not moved.]
6.22 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 16, line 37, after (" paragraph ") insert ("(jj,),").
The noble Earl said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 315 to 318 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon: moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 17, line 3, after (" subsection (1) ") insert (" ( jj),").
The noble Earl said: This amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert (" and subsection (2)(g) and (h)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment aims at correcting what appears to be an anomaly as between action that has to be taken in relation to birds and action that has to be taken in relation to mammals. The subsection requires the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State to consult an advisory body with regard to the issue of licences for killing or taking birds
" for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease; or for the purpose of preventing serious damage to crops "
et cetera, but imposes no such requirement in relation to mammals.
Therefore, I propose to add at the end of line 3 on page 17 the corresponding requirement to consult as regards mammals by adding "and subsection (2)(g) and (h)" which relates to mammals. That is on page 15. I hope I have got the point across. There is this anomaly that for birds there has to be consultation, for mammals there has not. I wish to provide the same conditions for mammals as for birds. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. We are in sympathy with the intention of the amendment and accept that there should be a similar requirement relating to the licensing functions. We intend to place it with these departments, where the need is to consider action against it on Schedule 5 animals and Schedule 6 mammals. We will undertake to put down a Government amendment if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful. I most willingly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 322:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
(" .—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority under section 15 to maintain registers containing:—

(a) the names and addresses of applicants to it for licences under that section; and

(b) copies of licences so issued.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain registers containing the names and addresses of—

(a) applicants to him for registration under section 6(2) of this Part;

(b) persons currently so registered;

(c) details of applications for and registration of birds under section 7(1).

(3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority and the Secretary of State respectively in relation to the register maintained under subsections (1) and (2):—

(a) to secure that the registers are open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(b) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from them on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the relevant register.").

The noble Lord said: This is a thoroughly self-explanatory amendment. It is simply aimed to ensure that the licensing procedure—by which everybody

61
is clearly setting such store, and which the noble Earl has already said would be to some extent open to public scrutiny because of the fact that the Government have to make an annual report to the EEC on their derogations from the directive—and the process of issuing licences is as open to public scrutiny as is possible, so that all of us can be sure, as licences are issued, that they are being issued for the purposes which Parliament has decided they should be.
The amendment would ensure that licences and registrations would be available. This would allow voluntary organisations particularly to give information to the authorities if they needed to about people in the trade whom they know not to be of the sort of character in respect of which the Government would have wished to issue licences. The clause is based on Section 41 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which I hope means that the drafting is reasonably acceptable to the Government.
There is one other argument I would advance in favour of having this sort of openness and the register. In the case of birds registered under Clause 7(1) of the Bill, a person buying a bird needs to know if it has been registered because otherwise the person would commit an offence when they purchased it. The sort of register I have suggested in this amendment would allow somebody to make sure that they did not inadvertently commit that sort of offence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: On the whole there is only one objection we have to this, which I shall come to, but we feel that quite a lot of this is already covered in the Bill. There is a clear duty imposed on the Secretary of State by the registration provisions of Clause 6 in respect of taxidermists and Clause 7 in respect of registrable birds to keep the type of records required in the amendment. Subsection (1) would impose a statutory duty, but in practice records would of practical necessity be maintained. Subsection (3) would allow unrestricted access to the records, and this is the part we find objectionable.
In particular I ought to mention the privacy of confidential information, a matter which your Lordships know is of increasing concern these days, but perhaps for the noble Lord I should refer to the high risk of information falling into the wrong hands. Many of the birds that will be required to be registered, particularly a number of the hawks, are rare and of value both in this country and abroad. We recognise that there would be little point in keeping records if they could not be used, and we intend to allow people to have information if they show reasonable cause. There is an apt analogy here in the access to vehicle registration records, for example. The department has gained considerable experience in these matters in operating the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and proposes to operate the new provisions in the same way. With that explanation of what we propose to do, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel so concerned about the need for his amendment and will withdraw it.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act is the best analogy the Minister could have drawn on because my information is that there has been an enormous amount of disquiet
62
about the standards and quality of the department's information in maintaining a register under that Act, and that on a number of occasions those concerned in the voluntary organisations have found it impossible to get information or have found the information muddled, inaccurate and out-of-date or have themselves corrected the department's information. I am sure the department has gained a great deal of experience from that measure and I know the department has been taking a number of steps recently to try to improve their performance, so there is recognition that matters need improving.
I am rather worried when the noble Earl says that access wilt be given to those deemed suitable to have the information. One would like some assurance, in the Bill or some other way, about who exacly will be deemed suitable because I would not like the Government to decide once the measure has become law that the only people suitable to receive this information are, for example, Government servants or people who have signed the Official Secrets Act or officers of ADAS and the NFU and nobody else. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government would make such a decision, but there seems to be a point here which, if it is not covered in the Bill, could be covered by a more specific assurance from the Government during the passage of the Bill. I will leave it there for now, and perhaps the Minister will write to me if he thinks there is any more he can say on the subject. I will consider between now and Report what he said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Enforcement]:
6.33 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 17, line 39, at end insert—
(" (e) in the case of an offence suspected of other than a person he reasonably suspects to be an authorised person, enter any land other than buildings for the purpose of exercising any power conferred on him under this Act.
( ) In subsection (1)(e) above, "land" has the meaning given in section 48(1) of this Act, but the power of entry given in that paragraph shall not be exercised in relation to land occupied by or under the management of:

(a) the Secretary of State responsible for Defence, or

(b) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, or

(c) the service authorities of a visiting force within the meaning of any of the provisions of Part I of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, or

(d) any headquarters or organisation designated for the purposes of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964.").

The noble Lord said: This is another detailed amendment which I will move briefly. Its purpose is to ensure that a police constable going on to land—but, I emphasise, not into buildings—where that police officer suspects offences are taking place will not be a trespasser so long as he goes on to the land without thinking that the person involved in committing the offence is an authorised person. Having said that, I hope the Committee will sympathise with me in trying to explain a somewhat convoluted amendment, for which I apologise.
The restriction is quite restricted but it would provide a useful clarification of police powers. The Minister may say that a police officer would be so authorised anyway under Section 2 of the Game Act 1831, from which the words of the amendment are taken—so again I hope the drafting is all right—in which case I would be happy to consider the point, but it seems to me that that Act is more or less redundant, apart from this section of it, and that that Act of 1831 could be done away with if this provision were added to the Bill.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We sympathise to a great extent with the amendment. There seems a need, for example, for a police constable who sees someone shooting at an obviously protected bird to be able to enter land to investigate. On the other hand, we are not happy about the wording of the amendment. I undertake to consider whether a Government amendment to achieve the aims encompassed by this amendment should be tabled at a later stage, and accordingly I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am delighted at that response and am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 324:
Page 17, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert—
(" (a) an offence for which this Part provides that a person shall on conviction be liable to a special penalty has been committed ").
The noble Lord said: Clause 18, which provides for the issue of search warrants to constables investigating offences involving the specially protected wild birds listed in Schedule 1, such offences attracting a special penalty, is very welcome. However, there appears to be a slight lack because there is no provision to grant such warrants for all offences which involve special penalties, and by definition such offences in this class must be regarded as serious. The purpose of the amendment is that powers to issue search warrants be extended to cover those.
An important difficulty has arisen in the past, and it may arise again if this provision remains as drafted. I refer particularly to the special penalty offences in Clause 5 which involve the laying of poisons or the use of pole traps. Both are unselective methods of killing birds and the pole trap is barbaric. A constable may wish to establish whether a suspect has under his control a supply of the relevant poison or pole trapping equipment, suspecting very strongly that he does. Without powers for the police to enter premises, a culprit simply needs to claim that some outsider planted the poison or trap on land under his control. Many investigations have foundered on this point in the past and if the Minister would like instances of this I am able to provide them. My amendment would cover those and other similar offences specified in Clause 5 and the special penalty offences in Clause 3 which do not involve Schedule 1 species. It is vital that search
64
warrant powers appropriate to the gravity of such offences be granted, and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I support the amendment. The use of a search warrant is the kind of protection we require. We were talking about whether a policeman can go on land, but the use of a search warrant given by a magistrate is the kind of thing we must have before we can, with justice, seriously prosecute these offences. These offences will be very hard to deal with without this power, and I therefore hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Again, I agree with the amendment. 1 undertake to raise the matter with my noble friend Lord Bellwin and therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 325 not morel.]
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 326:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
(" Summary prosecutions
.—(1) This section applies to—

(a) any offence under section 1(1) or 3(1) involving the killing or taking of any wild bird;

(b) any offence under section 9(1) involving the killing or taking of any wild animal; and

(c) any offence under section 12(1) involving the picking, uprooting or destruction of any wild plant.

(2) Summary proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this section more than two years after the commission of the offence.
(3) For the purpose of this section a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the date on which such evidence as aforesaid came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and a certificate stating that matter and purporting to be signed shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved.").
The noble Lord said: This is intended to remedy a weakness in the Protection of Birds Acts. It has been found that very often the person committing the offence would have disposed of the illegally taken eggs or birds and the offence would come to light only when they were found some time later in the possession of possibly an innocent or, at any rate, ignorant third party. The period inside which proceedings must start has been extended to two years and we believe that that is a sensible compromise between perpetual jeopardy and the present all-too-easily-escaped six months' limit. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I am delighted to see the Government putting down this amendment, and I warmly welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Penalties, forfeitures etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 327 and 328 not moved.]
6.40 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 329:
Page 18, line 13, leave out (" £500") and insert (" £1,000 ").
The noble Baroness said: I raised the question of the amount of the fines at Second Reading. We think that £500 is quite inadequate when one considers that a peregrine can be sold for anything between £1,000 and £1,500. It seems very unreal to have £500 as a maximum. A noble Lord suggested that there is an alternative prison sentence, but we should not wish to see a prison sentence imposed for an offence of this kind, which seems to me very much to be a case where it is the pocket which should be hit. It is very difficult to catch people who arc trying to get rare birds and eggs, and it seems to me that the courts should have very strong powers of fine in these cases. In speaking to this amendment I can speak also to Amendments Nos. 330 and 331, since the principle is exactly the same. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Since most of the time I seem to be against the Opposition Front Bench, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Baroness here. I entirely take her point that by and large prison sentences are not appropriate in these cases, but extra fines most certainly are.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sorry to hear that from my noble friend behind me, because I am not in favour of the amendment. While understanding the intentions behind the amendments, the Government consider the Bill as drafted to achieve the right balance, and this reflects the present position. We carefully considered an increase in the maximum penalty levels, but concluded that it was right to use the statutory maximum fine, currently £1,000, for offences involving the illegal introduction of non-native species, which are potentially the most harmful of the offences in this part of the Bill. Also, we have maintained the power which allows magistrates to send people to prison in respect of certain offences for up to three months and the multiplier provision which allows penalties to he applied separately in respect of each bird or egg which is the subject of a charge. That is the Government's view on this matter, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: No, I shall not withdraw the amendment because we feel strongly that the maximum fine should be £1,000.
6.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 329) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Brockway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bernstein, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Caccia, L.

66

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Melchett, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Segal, L.

Jacques, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thurso, V.

Kinloss, Ly,

Tryon, L.

Knutsford, V.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Wells-Pestell, L.

White, B.

Loudoun, C.

Wigoder, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winstanley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Avon, E.

Kimberley, E.

Balerno, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bathurst, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Chelwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Chorley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cross, V.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mills, V.

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Northchurch, B.

De La Warr, E.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swansea, L.

Grimstone of Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vickers, B.

Halifax, E.

Vivian, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice to move Amendment No. 330:
Page 18, line 16, leave out (" £50 ") and insert (" £100 ").
The noble Baroness said: I have in effect spoken to this amendment already. I feel very strongly that £50 is totally inadequate, but I think that in view of the vote we have just taken we should not move this amendment for the moment but should wait to hear what happens to Amendment No. 332 to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. So for the moment I will not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 331 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 18, line 19, leave out ("£500") and insert ("the statutory maximum").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is, in a way, a matter of principle. The effects of it would be to increase the fine to £1,000, about which your Lordships have already voted. But, as I understand it, the situation in magistrates' courts is that magistrates are likely to work on the Act in front of them; so far as the fine is concerned, this may have been increased in later reprintings of the Act, and the magistrates may not have the information. Would it not be more sensible, in view of the erratic value of money, to put no figure in here, as my amendment suggests, and then, in future legislation, instead of saying "the statutory maximum" you could say "half the statutory maximum". But as it is the situation is unsatisfactory, and I believe there is an improvement here. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I think it goes without saying that we should support this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: The Government believe that the appropriate penalty for offences against protected species is £500. The term "statutory maximum" is reserved specifically for linking the maximum summary penalty for offences triable either summarily or on indictment to the inflation-proofed prescribed sum as defined in the Criminal Law Act, and that is currently £1,000. Maximum penalties for all new summary offences in both local and national legislation have, since the Criminal Law Act 1977, been fixed, according to the relative gravity of the offences concerned, on a four-point scale—£50, £200, £500 and £1,000. Under normal circumstances £1,000 is currently the maximum financial penalty which may be imposed by magistrates' courts, and is thus reserved for the most serious offences. I hope that with that clarification my noble friend will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: I must say that I do not really understand the line the Government are taking on this unless it is coming to them from the Home Office rather than from their scientific advisers; because, as (I think it was) the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said on an earlier day, it is possible now to sell young peregrines for well over £1,000, so the statutory maximum fine does not at the moment equal the monetary gain which somebody is likely to be able to achieve by stealing one of the rare species dealt with in this Bill. That is today, and we all know from previous experience of the Protection of Birds Act that the level of the monetary penalty got out of date very quickly. Indeed, in another place my honourable friend Mr. Hardy had to introduce a Bill to bring the penalties in the Protection of Birds Act up to date—an absolutely ridiculous procedure and a waste of everybody's time in both Houses, except that it was a very important outcome. Nevertheless, it is absurd, it seems to me, for us to get ourselves into that muddle again.
If we insert the statutory maximum in this Bill it will be automatically increased as the years go by and we shall not have the business of endless Private Members' Bills having to go through both Houses of Parliament increasing £500 to £600 and then, three or
68
four years later, increasing £600 to £750 and so on—all the time knowing that when this Bill was made an Act the monetary penalties were not sufficiently high to counteract the types of offence which we know are already occurring under the existing legislation. We on this side of your Lordships' Committee, as I think my noble friend has already made clear, are not at all keen on people being sent to prison for offences of this type. It does not seem to us to be remotely appropriate; but if we are going to lose that power—and I think that, from the sound of it, we would have had some support from noble Lords opposite—we really do need to have an adequate monetary penalty in the Bill.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would achieve that, and would achieve its being index-linked as well, which would, as I have said, save us a lot of time in the future. I really do think that this is something for which, from my reading of previous debates, there is a lot of support on both sides of the Committee, and which the Government should really be prepared to accept.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: If the statutory maximum is an inflation-linked sum and yet it is the highest fine that can be imposed, the Government appear to have got themselves into rather a difficult situation. One can quite well see that it is in some ways in the interests of justice that fines can be worked on a different scale, with four different scales depending on the gravity of the offence, and that these can be tied to inflation in such a way that we do not have to go on passing Bills the whole time. On the other hand, you have a very difficult situation where, as is occurring now, the profit to be made from a crime which is not in itself one that you would necessarily put in the absolute top category is such that just one of these crimes, successfully committed just once, will produce a larger profit than the fine.
My noble friend Lord Thurso tells me that the bottom is falling out of the falcon market. I do not ask him how he knows these things, but that may be so. But whether or not it is so, there is a very real difficulty here. May I ask the noble Earl the Minister whether it would be possible, for instance—and I am sorry to admit my ignorance on this matter, but I think noble Lords will agree that this is in fact a rather complex one—to put down an amendment at a later stage providing that the penalty should be (shall we say?) half or three-quarters of the maximum. At least as I understand it, that would get over the inflation problem, if it did nothing else. It would not necessarily meet the problem of the amount of money that is to be made in this nefarious trade. I think the Government as a whole should look again at this policy that they have about fines. We can hardly upset the whole of the Home Office penal policy on this clause. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to look at the solution I have put forward.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that may have got ourselves into a slight muddle here. It is important to work out that people should be fined more than the value of something they sell. Even though the bottom of the market may have fallen out of the falcon market, I am sure they are still saleable in Arabia

69
for more than £1,000. I know there are several middle men to get through and I know that this may be expensive, and so on. But I beg my noble friend to consider this. If one looks through this list carefully, one will find birds and animals which can be sold to overseas zoos at or to others at prices in excess of the maximum fine. Of course, we do not want the maximum fine always to be imposed. Rarely is it imposed by magistrates—who are sometimes criticised, when the maximum fine is, say, £500 they impose a fine of £15. Not to impose the maximum fine, as I believe the statistics will show, is fairly normal. I think it is important that people should not have an automatically built-in profit to be made on the sale of something rare. We all agree that the offenders need punishing and we all agree that these rare species must he protected. There is no difference between us on that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In defence of most overseas zoos—and I know a good many of them—this was a very unfair statement. I do not think that they normally cheat in this way.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Three or four years ago there were one or two instances where peregrine falcons were sold for as much as £3,000. That would not be so today. It is a fact that they are breeding in captivity and some have been bred like that. I would not say, as the noble Lord said, that the bottom has fallen out of the falcon market; but I believe the market is not as strong as it was. I still say that £1,000 is the right figure for the fine.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I ask my noble friend to refresh my memory? Some years ago the osprey came back to the Boat of Garten area in North Scotland, and tremendous trouble was taken to protect it. There were watchers for 24 hours a day who tried to do this. But in the end somebody had a go at it; but I do not remember what the result was. This was a very grave offence. I would not agree that, in a case like that, imprisonment would be wrong. I do not know what was the monetary value of the escapade to the people committing it. But I think it ought to be borne in mind that it can be a serious offence and may cause a great deal of public loss and public dismay.
Lord Melchett: I do not know whether the noble Earl knows the answer; but, as I remember it, at least once if not on more occasions the ospreys there were put off the nest and either eggs or the young were stolen. There is still a 24-hour watch on that nest as on many nests of rare birds in Scotland, North England and Wales. The monetary gain from stealing the young of a bird of prey is still very high. That is why we support Lord Craigton's amendment.
The Earl of Avon: Speaking from this Dispatch Box, nobody wants to see anybody going to prison on these sort of charges. My noble friend behind me said that on a matter like the ospreys, offenders might be sent to prison. My noble friend Lord Onslow raised the point of whether £500 or £1,000 is enough. Here we get into trouble when another noble friend says that it is worth £3,000. The rarity value and the amount of the fine really cannot be argued. The penalties in Clause 19,
70
if I could give the Government thinking, were chosen against the background of the Home Office scales. They reflect the penalties available for other comparable offences. The maximum fine of £500 on summary conviction is the level of the fine now available for the offence of deer poaching under the Deer Act. It is also subject to the same multiplier device by which penalties may be applied separately in respect of each bird, animal or plant in question. The existence of this device in wildlife legislation reflects the Government's commitment to protect our wildlife heritage. The effect is to enable magistrates to exceed their normal sentencing powers in cases where more than one item is involved in the offence.
The amendment proposed would mean that the penalties in the Bill would be inconsistent with those approved in the Deer Act and would provide sentencing powers depending on the numbers of items involved far in excess of the general limit applicable to the lower courts. I think it is important to preserve a sense of proportion and I believe the present prescription achieves this. It came up in the course of this discussion whether the £500 was inflation-proof. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I thought the answer would be, Yes; but I am afraid the answer is, No. Apparently, only the maximum fine for the offence is inflation-proof. There is no legislation at the moment in the (I think) Criminal Law Act to inflate the £500 fine. We have had an interesting discussion and I look forward to what my noble friend will say.
The Earl of Onslow: Could I make one point? When you are dealing with a deer-poaching offence the carcase of one roe deer is worth about £120. A peregrine falcon is worth a lot more. That is what we are arguing over.
Lord Craigton: There are two things that I should like to say. The first is that this amendment springs from the fertile brain of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who, for perfectly good reasons, was unable to move it. He should get the credit for it. Having been on the Front Bench myself, I realise the difficulties which can be caused when this sort of amendment is pressed. On the other hand, noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have made me realise that the Craigton-Skelmersdale amendment has a great deal of merit. We cannot go on without forcing the Government to do something. That is what Governments are there for. That is what the Back-Benches are there for.
7.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 332) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Broadbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Brockway, L.

Bathurst, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bernstein, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Beswick, L.

Caccia, L.

Blease, L.

Chorley, L.

Boston, L.

Collison, L.

71

Colwyn, L.

Melchett, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mills, V.

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Newall, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Noel-Baker, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Phillips, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Sandford, L.

Hale, L.

Savile, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Shannon, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stedman, B.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Jeger, B.

Swansea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Knutsford, V.

Trumpington, B.

Listowel, E.

Tryon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lonsdale, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

McCarthy, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Yarborough, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Inglewood, L.

Allerton, L.

Killearn, L.

Avon, E.

Kilmany, L.

Balerno, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Middleton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Dundee, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vickers, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: with the permission of the Committee, I beg to move that the house do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Railways (Victoria) Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committed.
Great Yarmouth Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a and referred to the Examiners.
Peterborough Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiner.
Preston Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
Sion College Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
United Reformed Church (Slough) Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

Wallerawang Collieries, Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
Lord Lyell: 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 7.20 to 8 p.m.]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 19.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 18, line 27, leave out (" or plant ") and insert (" plant or other thing ").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to ensure that the device by which penalties may be applied separately in respect of each bird, nest egg, animal or plant also applies to any part or derivative thereof. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We shall be pleased to support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 18, line 34, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" may ").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" at the beginning of Clause 19(5)(a), thus making it discretionary rather than obligatory for the court to order any forfeiture of any bird, nest, et cetera, in respect of which the offence was committed.
This amendment has been made less necessary by the putting down of Amendment No. 335A, which would delete all the words from "committed" to the end of the paragraph. It was in those cases that I felt it was particularly desirable that the forfeiture should be nor more than discretionary, but I do invite the Committee to consider whether my proposal is still not preferable, in view of the fact that it orders the court to impose the forfeiture of any bird, egg, nest, et cetera in respect of which the offence was committed, and that can be any offence under this part. For example, if someone is before the court because he has disturbed a bird or disturbed the young of a bird, the court has to order the forfeiture of that bird—which of course is still flying about in the wild. I suggest it is not right that it should be obligatory and that it would be better to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: Under Section 12(3) of the Protection of Birds Act it is already mandatory for the court to seize the subject of the offence, and to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would merely give the court discretion on such a seizure, which would be a dilution of the penalty. It is important that offenders should have no opportunity of enjoying the fruits of their crimes, and accordingly I request your Lordships to reject this amendment and to continue to compel the court to seize the specimens.
Lord Kilbracken: I do not want to make too much of this, but I do not think we should be afraid of making changes which would improve the existing legislation. The point I made was that in cases one can foresee it would not be possible to order the forfeiture of the egg, animal or plant in question. Therefore, I thought it would still be preferable to make it discretionary, but, as I say, I do not want to make too much of it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 18, line 35, leave out (" or plant ") and insert (" plant or other thing ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to Amendment No. 333. It seeks to extend the power of the court to order the forfeiture of any part or derivative of any bird, nest, egg, animal or plant in respect of which an offence has been committed. This is another way of approaching the problem, and I hope the Committee may feel it is a more satisfactory one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 335A:
Page 18, line 36, leave out from (" committed ") to (" and ") in line 39.
The noble Lord said: As at present drafted, Clause 19(5)(a) in requiring the forfeiture of further specimens of illegally released or escaped species would act harshly if there was no likelihood of further specimens being so released or allowed to escape. The combined effect of these amendments is to make forfeiture in such cases a matter of the court's discretion.
74
I think your Lordships will appreciate that we are introducing here a degree of discretion in another aspect, and I think that is probably acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness David: May I just ask the noble Lord whether he is thinking entirely in terms of animals or whether plants would also be considered here?—because it seems to me that that is a slightly different category.
Lord Sandys: The subsection does say:
" in the case of an offence under section 13, any animal or plant which is of the same kind as that in respect of which the offence was committed and was found in his possession; ".
So both animals and plants are in this amendment. I hope that it is sufficient explanation. It does not specifically refer to derivatives of animals but this is perhaps not the point the noble Baroness wished to touch on.
Baroness David: No, not really. It seems to me that an animal and plant, or seed of a plant, are in rather different categories; so before giving my approval to this I should like to have a look at what the noble Lord has said and possibly come back at a later stage.
Lord Kilbracken: It seems to me it would be very difficult to order the forfeiture of all plants of the same species. It is a strange fact that it is not going to be legal to plant in the wild plants that do not grow in the wild, so if a landowner takes it into his head to plant some roses on woodland or outside his garden, that would be an offence, which seems very remarkable. If he is found guilty of this heinous crime of growing roses in the wild the court would have to order the forfeiture of all his roses which are growing in the garden. That seems to be quite impracticable.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has raised a very interesting anomaly. I think this must have occurred to all those who read the Bill with some care, as the noble Lord undoubtedly has done. Certainly there are some extreme cases in which such a situation could arise and undoubtedly the position has certain complications to which perhaps noble Lords have already drawn attention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Milverton Lord Milverton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 336:
Page 18, line 39, after (" possession ") insert—
(" ( ) may order the forfeiture of any part of, or anything derived from, any such thing such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; ").
Lord Melchett: As the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is not in his place I wonder if I may speak to this amendment.
Lord Sandys: With the agreement of the Committee. If any Member of the Committee disagrees to it, I think we should put the Question.
Lord Melchett: My understanding, having taken advice, is that it is in order for any noble Lord to move

75
an amendment which is on the Marshalled List, and I beg leave to move No. 336. This amendment actually came up at an earlier stage when we were discussing parts of eggs. The effect of subsection (5) of Clause 19 is to enable a court to order the forfeiture, besides other things, of any bird, nest, egg, or other animal or plant in respect of which an offence has been committed. This amendment extends the provision to parts and derivatives, such as the skins of birds or animals, and parts and extracts of plants which are sold from time to time. As I said, we had an amendment about parts of eggs at an earlier stage. This is not exactly the same point, but it is a similar kind of point. I hope that that is simply a useful clarification and that, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, the Government will nevertheless accept the amendment. beg to move.
Lord Sandys: We are in a slightly more complicated position here. The Government's Amendment, No. 335, which was accepted by the Committee, has already ensured that a court shall confiscate parts and derivatives. The Government oppose this amendment, as it would not require the court to confiscate parts and derivatives. This is the current position and we would not wish to see it weakened. Convicted persons should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their crimes, as I have already suggested, and I feel, despite the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, that in its present shape this amendment is not acceptable.
Lord Melchett: I take it, from what the noble Lord said at the beginning of his remarks, that the words "or other thing" cover parts and derivatives of plants and animals—animal skins and so on. The noble Lord is nodding and that is what I understood him to say. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 337:
Page 18, line 40, after (" any ") insert (" vehicle, animal, weapon or other ").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 338 at the same time. This has to do with forfeitures under subsection (5)(b) on page 18, which reads that the court,
… may order the forfeiture of any thing which was used to commit the offence ".
The paragraph above that says that the court shall order the forfeiture of the fruits of the offence. Whether it be birds' eggs, a plant or an animal, the fruits of the offence must be forfeited. But the court may order the forfeiture of any thing which was used to commit the offence. That means that if, for example, a person has used a crossbow unlawfully to destroy a bird or animal which was protected under the Bill, then the court could order the forefeiture of the weapon used.
What, however, is not clear is whether a vehicle or a boat used for the purpose of committing the offence, could be forfeited under the term "any thing ". I am advised that consideration of similar statutory powers indicates that the generic term "thing" in that
76
context could not be construed as including a vehicle or a boat. If the area of forfeiture is to be widened beyond that in the clause, then my advice is that it has to be explicitly mentioned in the clause,
This introduces also the second amendment; namely, whether a thing is used in the committing of the offence, or whether it helps in the committing of the offence. There are precedents for this. For example, let us suppose that a person drove in a motor vehicle to a remote part, where he understood there were birds nesting which were protected under the Bill and which he wanted to capture. He used a weapon for the purpose and, having got his prey, went back to the motor vehicle and drove back to town. As it is at present drafted, I understand that while he may be required to forfeit whatever weapon or thing he used to capture the birds, this clause would not allow the court to order him to surrender his vehicle; or, if he had been guilty of going on water for the purpose of marauding animals or birds, the boat would not be included either.
But in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1972, the example that I have given is covered. It would be possible to require him to foreit his vehicle, as well as the weapon with which he captured or killed the fish or other thing which is forbidden under the law. This is really a lawyer's amendment, although it has practical value from the point of view of whether we are really going to go for these people good and hard, or whether they might escape with forfeiture of the minor implement that they were using for the purpose of their crime, and get away with the main instrument of carrying out their raid on some protected bird or animal.
I do not know what are the Government's intentions with regard to the extension of the forfeiture required under this clause, but it seems to me that it is not enough, in the kind of example that I have given, to allow a court to require a person to forfeit a gun, and not allow a court to require him to forfeit a Land Rover which got him there and back again and without which he could not have committed the crime at all. So this amendment extends the field of forfeitures and must also extend, as it were, the area of the offence; namely, to instruments used for the purpose of committing the offence and not be confined to instruments used in the committing of the offence. That is the effect of this amendment.
I hope that I have made clear what the purpose is and that the Government may have a view about it. I think we should extend the forfeitures to cover the kind of examples that I have given, which would carry with it the need to extend the words that are in the clause to include
… in or in connection with the commission of the offence ".
I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: It is also important to include the vehicle that is taking away the animal, or whatever it is that the offence is in respect of, after the commission of the offence. So it is not only arriving; it is taking away and making a get-away with the prey.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to my noble friend. He is, of course, thinking of deer.
Lord Northfield: We already have it in the case of deer.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, draws our attention to a particularly interesting part of the drafting of this Bill. I think I can assure the noble Lord that the situation has been thought about by our parliamentary counsel and I can set his mind at rest. The amendment seeks to allow a court to confiscate any vehicle, animal, weapon or other thing. However, the Bill as drafted provides for this. The words "any thing" cover a vehicle, an animal, et cetera. I can assure the noble Lord that parliamentary counsel have drafted this clause in the Bill on the clear understanding that vehicles, animals and weapons should be covered. I hope this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melehett: I am not entirely clear about this. My noble friend Lord Northfield quite rightly intervened. In one of the best drafted pieces of legislation which have been passed through Parliament recently; namely, the Deer Act 1980, in Section 5, where an exactly similar provision appears, this is spelled out in detail:
" The court has the power to order the forfeiture of any vehicle, animal, weapon or other thing ".
Parliamentary counsel were presumably involved in clearing the drafting of that Act and thought it necessary to spell all this out in detail. I cannot see why, a few months later, parliamentary counsel suddenly are convinced that "any thing" includes all these things without it being spelled out. I cannot see how "any thing" can include an animal. In normal usage, certainly it is not apparent. It seems to me that it would improve the drafting of the clause if my noble friend's amendment, or something like it, were accepted. I wonder whether the Government would look at this again in the light of the advice which parliamentary counsel gave so recently on another Act of Parliament.
Lord Sandys: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who rightly referred to Section 5 of the Deer Act 1980. I think that it would be only right once more to consider the situation in a little detail. I cannot advise the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the Government will bring forward their own amendment, if necessary. However, in the light of what has been said by all noble Lords concerned —the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has been mentioned—we shall have a look at this provision. On that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: If the noble Lord is to take this back and look at everything, including the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I should like him to consider whether or not animal" is or is not included at the moment. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I do not think that we should encourage the giving of powers for the confiscation of, say, people's dogs. I have no sympathy with poachers and the kind of people who prey on the rare species we are talking about in the Bill, but there are certain
78
sentimentalities which are soundly based. Whatever solution is found, it should not include that one.
Lord Northfield: I resist that suggestion on the following grounds. Particularly in the case of deer we have now reached the stage where lurcher clogs are trained to do exactly this. I feel rather sore about it, because two days ago one of them attacked my own dogs. It is a particularly cruel way of killing deer. It is very clear that these or similar dogs can be trained to commit other offences which are dealt with in the Bill. When they become directly relevant to the commission of the act in that way, I should be strongly in favour of confiscation as one of the most important deterrents in the Bill.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I still stand by my remarks which were purely personal and have nothing to do with my party, which on this extremely important point has no policy on it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will probably recall that the Deer Act 1963 had to be extended by the Deer Act 1980 so as to provide for this very forfeiture. Although no distinction is made in the Deer Act 1980 between the weapon that kills and the vehicle which gets the offender there, the forfeiture of the means of getting there and back and carrying the quarry back was clearly provided for in the definition of forfeitures in the 1980 Act. The Badgers Act comes into it, too. There the forfeitures relate to the particular methods of taking the badger. They do not deal with the vehicle because the vehicle is probably not so necessary as in the case of deer, and probably is not necessary in the case of some of the crimes which might be committed under this Bill.
I am satisfied that the Minister has a small legal problem to consider with parliamentary counsel in order to see whether it is watertight. It would be a pity if the first case taken to the courts to test the construction of the words of this section resulted in a decision by the courts that the vehicle or boat was not within the range of forfeiture. Then the assurance given by the noble Lord would not be so satisfactory as he hopes it will be. However, I leave it in his hands and in the meantime withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 338:
Page 18, line 41, leave out (" to commit ") and insert (" in or in connection with the commission of ").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that I have withdrawn Amendment No. 337, I do not move this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard Viscount Massereene and Ferrard moved Amendment No. 339:
Page 18, line 41, at end insert (" including a vehicle which was used to carry the person committing the offence and which contains any bird, nest, egg, other animal or plant in respect of which the offence was committed ").
The noble Viscount said: Much that I wanted to say in speaking to this amendment has already been said.

79
My amendment and two of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, are in much the same vein. The point, which the noble Lord explained to us, is not so much to do with the vehicle in which the poacher commits the offence. It is to do with the vehicle which takes away the animals or the plants that he has illegally taken. As the Bill is drafted, a defendant could say that the vehicle was not used to commit the offence. Therefore, I do not think that you could forfeit the vehicle. This clause needs more enforcement powers. As I pointed out in the case of the original Deer Act, which was followed up extremely ably by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, mentioned in the case of the Salmon Acts, you can forfeit the cars, the boats, the gear, the nets—everything that is used for poaching. When the Government come, as I understand they will, to redraft this part of Section 5, I hope that—
Lord Sandys: To put my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on the right lines regarding the Government's thinking on this matter, we are going to examine the clause. I did not say that we were going to draft a new amendment. I said that we are going to have another look at it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I was trying to put words into my noble friend's mouth. Perhaps I should not have done so. As the Bill is drafted, under paragraph (b) you
"may order the forfeiture of any thing which was used to commit the offence ".
Surely a dog is not a thing?
The Earl of Avon: Yes.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I did not think that a thing was a live being. If you look at the Oxford dictionary, I do not think you will find that is the case, but perhaps I am wrong. I should think that might be altered, too. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I support this amendment because I think it would help very much if the Government would put something of this kind into the Bill. There are a variety of escape clauses for thieves if one does not absolutely write down what would happen. Anyone who was stealing an animal or a bird, or whatever it might be, and then got some help from someone taking him off in a motor car or a Land Rover who was not, as it were, involved in the actual theft, could probably get away with it. If we could bring in something of this kind, I think it would be an additional method of helping the police, or whoever was dealing with the offence, to catch the offender. I hope that the Government will take this quite seriously and will either incorporate this amendment in the Bill, or one of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Lord Avebury: I hope the Minister will take this clause away and look at it not only in the light of the debate on this amendment but in the light of previous debates on other amendments, as well. When the
80
Minister does so, I would ask him to consider this proposal very carefully. What I understand the noble Lord to be suggesting is that it would be necessary not only for the prosecution to establish that the vehicle had been used in the course of the commission of the offence but also that the vehicle, at some time which was not specified, contained any of the objects in respect of which the offence was committed. I think this would make the job of the police more difficult in securing a conviction where the vehicle had undoubtedly been used in the commission of the offence, in the sense that it was used to take the people to the scene of the crime, but when the police apprehended the criminals they did not find any of the objects in question within the vehicle. So, with respect, I think the noble Lord has not drawn the clause tightly enough, and I would prefer to see one of the earlier amendments incorporated when the noble Lord considers the whole clause.
Lord Craigton: I agree with what has just been said. I admire parliamentary draftsmen enormously —I think they are marvellous—but, in this case, I think that the wording of the Bill here is a little too tight for all that could be read into it.
Lord Sandys: I do not want to repeat the words that I said on the previous amendment. I feel sure that there is ample justification for having another look at it. I do not think that on consideration, looking at the penalties clause, the Government have underestimated the seriousness of the offence—or indeed offences, because sometimes it may be a group of offences. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment 338ZA:
Page 18, line 41, at end insert (" and, in the case of an offence under section 13, any animal or plant which is of the same kind as that in respect of which the offence was committed and was found in his possession.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 339A:
Page 18, line 45, at end insert—
(" (7) Where an offence under this Part which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In this subsection "director", in relation to a body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under public ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, being a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of that body corporate.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has a fairly simple purpose. It would make directors liable for the

81
activities of their company if they knew, or ought to have known, of them. The reason for putting this into this clause is that companies, of course, can only be fined, although we have already agreed that imprisonment probably would not be a suitable penalty for many of the offences under this Bill. But companies, even if heavily fined, can go into liquidation and avoid that liability. And it seemed useful that, in the very limited circumstances where directors either knew that the company was breaking the law and therefore were directly liable for it or where they ought to have known and had a duty of care which they did not fulfil, they again ought to be liable. I hope the noble Lord will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: Would not the person concerned be prosecuted and not the company—in other words the person who committed the offence?
Lord Melchett: If this amendment were put into the Bill, there would not be any question about it. I simply do not know. But if the offence was committed in the name of the company by the company's servants in some way, then I suppose it might not be possible without this amendment—unless the Government can convince me that it would be possible—to prosecute the individual concerned.
Lord Sandys: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for proposing this amendment, which would clarify the question of liability of an individual when an offence had been committed by a corporate body. I note that the wording suggested in the amendment is as it appears in Section 8 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. Once again the noble Lord has lighted upon a particular section in an existing statute, and it reinforces the waterproof nature of the amendment.
We think that there may be a need for such a provision in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, but we are not convinced that it should be in Part I. Therefore, I undertake to take away this proposal and give it full consideration, with a view to there being a Government amendment that it be proposed for that Part of the Bill where we feel it would be most relevant. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on that understanding.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord withdraws this amendment, may I ask one question? This amendment speaks about offences having been committed by a body corporate and then goes on to associate the managers or directors of that body corporate with the offence. I can understand very clearly what the noble Lord is trying to do; if a servant of the body corporate has actually committed the offence, but if it is on the instructions of the directors, then they should not escape punishment. But I wonder whether the noble Lord had confined his attention to companies that are incorporated under the Companies Act and whether there are not other kinds of bodies in which the responsibility might be similarly apportioned between the managers or the proprietors, on the one hand, and the servants, on the other.
It might easily happen that the partners in a partnership might give instructions to someone to commit
82
an offence under this Bill and that they equally ought to be held guilty. It is more likely, for example, in the case of an agricultural enterprise that the persons who gave those instructions would have been members of a partnership rather than a limited company, because I think it is more usual for agricultural businesses to be conducted in that way. So when the Minister comes to look at the possibility of incorporating the spirit of this amendment in another part of this Bill, I hope he will consider extending the kinds of bodies to which it applies.
Lord Melchett: The point I had in mind in restricting this to companies was that companies could escape liability by going into liquidation, which of course would not be the case with a partnership. The partners would be individually liable for the activities of the partnership. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has already pointed out, the other advantage of this amendment is that it is already in an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it is properly drafted and I would think that it would be acceptable to most people. I think it covers the main points which need to be covered. We have the question of the liability of landowners for the activities of their servants, in regard to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, moved an earlier amendment. I think that really covers the other major point that needs covering. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his commitment to propose a Government amendment in the right place in the Bill. I am delighted we have scored another winner today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.40 p.m.
Baroness David: I should like to ask the Minister a question in relation to Clause 19. We are left now in the most extraordinary situation after the Government defeat on Amendment No. 332. We now have the statutory maximum fine for the protection of certain wild animals and for the protection of wild plants, whereas for the protection of wild birds—that includes the peregrine, which was mentioned constantly—we have the maximum of £500. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government what their intention will be about this.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have one other question to ask on the clause. I did raise it on the Question That Clause 13 stand part. That is the question of whether imprisonment is the correct punishment for offences here. Under Clauses 1 to 8 it is three months' imprisonment; under Clause 13 it is up to two years. I fully supported the amendment to increase the fines; I have no objection at all to that. But I am not at all happy that imprisonment is the right thing to do here. It fills our gaols, and I see no purpose in it whatever. I would hope that my noble friend will take this away, and if he cannot give me an answer now perhaps he can give me an answer later.
Lord Melchett: We have said this before, but I do think it is worth reiterating. As your Lordships'

83
Committee has passed an amendment to increase the financial penalties, it is important that it comes from all sides of the House that we do not think imprisonment is a suitable penalty for offences under an Act of this sort. I hope the Government, now that they have the increaesd fines which they did not want, will look at the possibility of dropping some of the clauses which allow people to be sentenced to imprisonment.
Earl De La Warr: I should like to support the noble Lords who have just spoken on this Question, particularly on the penalty of imprisonment up to two years for conviction on indictment of an offence under Clause 13. I think it is totally inappropriate, for reasons which I shall not argue any further. My noble friend is probably aware that I shall be dealing with this in an amendment on a later clause. Meanwhile, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I think it would be extremely helpful if my noble friend could say a word about this.
Lord Craigton: I should like to support what has been said about this.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support what has been said about this, but there is just one point. If somebody persistently goes on offending under Schedule I in relation to birds, should we be totally throwing away imprisonment for persistent offenders? That is all I ask. Otherwise I am totally in agreement with my noble friend.
Baroness Phillips: I would not like to pre-empt what the Minister will say, but I think it is unusual not to have in an Act of Parliament the linking of the fine with the imprisonment, the and/or phrase. I think it would be breaking new ground. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but simply saying that it would be unusual to have a statutory offence which had only the fine as the penalty.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I simply say that I think it is desirable to keep imprisonment? You never know what people will get up to. There could be quite serious offences for which the financial penalty by itself would not be appropriate. There might be very cruel offences.
Lord Avebury: Surely if any cruelty to animals is involved proceedings can be taken against the offender under other Acts where there may well be imprisonment. Under the Cruelty to Animals Act, no doubt, it is possible to send someone to prison for gross cruelty to animals. As to whether this is the right place to put the penalty of imprisonment, I must say I agree with my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley in doubting it. I think the serious crimes with which we are dealing here are properly punishable with very heavy fines, and the Minister has been given the power to impose very much greater fines than were in the Bill as originally drafted. To put on top of this the possibility of the courts sending somebody to prison for up to two years is really excessive. I must say to the noble Baroness that there are many offences on the statute book which are punishable only by fines and which do
84
not have imprisonment as an alternative. I should have thought that the offences we are dealing with here should be in that category.
Baroness Phillips: I do not want to take issue with the noble Lord, but I do not know of an indictable offence that does not carry imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Earl of Avon: Before we get too involved, there seem to be two issues here; first, what we passed earlier, and, secondly, the question of imprisonment. Of course, we have not had time—as I, too, grabbed a sandwich in the interval—to discuss the consequences of the amendment in increasing the fine from £500 to £1,000 which the Committee has passed. It will be for the Government to move the necessary amendments to go with it or try to make other arrangements, and the House will know later which way we are going to go. On the question of imprisonment, which noble Lords behind me particularly raised, we are looking at this. It was raised with me earlier. The two departments concerned are looking at the question of imprisonment. I hope to be able to come back to noble Lords with this decision when we reach that stage, which I think will probably be on Thursday.
Lord Avebury: Does that mean that the noble Earl will take the opportunity of letting us know what the decision of the departments has been?
The Earl of Avon: If the decision is made by then, I certainly shall, but it is a very complicated question which the two legal departments are in discussion about.
Baroness David: If we do not get an answer by Thursday, perhaps the noble Earl will write to us so that we shall know whether or not to put down amendments at Report stage.
The Earl of Avon: I am sure we shall know by the end of the Bill. I said Thursday because I am not sure where the next amendment about imprisonment comes in. I think it is on Clause 26.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Power to vary Schedules):
[Amendments: Nos. 340 to 344 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 19 line 43 leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: I said on an earlier amendment that I admired the parliamentary draftsmen. This is a very well drafted Bill. But I cannot extend my admiration to subsection (7). I simply put this amendment down to get the Minister to say that he will ask the parliamentary draftsmen to have a look at it and make it easier to understand. If he can do that, I shall have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I wonder whether I may ask the Minister a question about this. I was not at all clear either. It appears to me that, if this subsection were taken out, it would annul any alteration to a schedule which was made by order of the Secretary of State

85
after the Bill had been enacted, so that if a plant were suddenly in danger of extinction, or indeed a bird or animal, and was therefore added to the schedule, the Secretary of State could not make a special order relating to its protection in a special area because it would not be, so to speak, a foundation member of the schedule. That was my interpretation. Therefore, one would not wish to have the subsection removed. But I do think it is extremely difficult to understand and perhaps could be better drafted. We should like an explanation of what it means.
The Earl of Cranbrook: When redrafting, can I hope that it will be made zoologically literate by admitting that birds and mammals are included in "animals"?
The Earl of Avon: I do not think we have said that we shall redraft it. The purpose of subsection (7) is to ensure that the provisions of the schedules apply in their amended form. That is all it does. If the noble Lord wants some simplification in it I must say that we shall, of course, have a look at it although I think that we are looking at so much at present that I cannot guarantee to come back with anything more favourable.
Lord Craigton: I now understand what subsection (7) means. I did not understand it before. That having been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: I should like to ask one question about Clause 20 which gives the power to vary the schedules. A protected species can suddenly become endangered by some unexpected happening. I want to know how quickly something can be added to, or indeed taken away from, a schedule.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Baroness has slightly bowled me out on that one. I think I shall have to write to her about it.
Baroness David: I apologise; I should have given notice.
The Earl of Avon: 1 think that it is done by order, but f would like to come back to it.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Advisory bodies and their functions]:
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 345A:
Page 20 line 5, after (" State ") insert (" and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 345A, which stands in my name and that of my two noble friends. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 346A, 346B, 346C, 346D, and 347A and 347B. We have now come to Clause 21 of the Bill which provides power for the Secretary of State to establish bodies to advise him on the carrying out of all that we have been discussing in Part I. As that is
86
very largely the concern of both the Minister of Agriculture in England and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland, I am moving the amendment because we would like to be quite sure that there is a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with the two Ministries when he is appointing, as he will be, the committees which this clause deals with.
The advisory committees which he is to appoint have obvious connections with agriculture. They have a dual responsibility both to the Ministry of Agriculture and to the Scottish Office—to the Secretary of State for Scotland. All that we have been discussing in connection with birds, animals and so on, has repercussions on agriculture: production and growing of crops and so on. It is most important that these advisory committees should include representatives from the two important Ministries that I have mentioned.
I have the feeling that possibly the Government may say, "Well, of course, the Ministers will be consulted. The Secretary of State could not appoint advisory committees that did not have representatives from these two departments ". But I do not think that that is enough. It is important that there should he a statutory obligation that on these advisory committees there should be direct representation of these two departments: in England, the Ministry of Agriculture, and in Scotland,the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I think that in point of fact we have given this matter quite a good airing today. I believe that all the arrangements envisaged by these amendments already exist and will continue to do so. We have already said that both the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State are working together on all these matters with the help of the NCC. This amendment causes a slightly unhappy result in terms of drafting, because while the term "Secretary of State" is not limited to enable the Secretary of State for the Environment specifically to act, the reference to the Minister of Agriculture, which it would be coupled with, would be limited to that Minister alone.
As I said when speaking to earlier amendments, the advisory body is now to be the NCC and the Department of the Environment will consult with them and all departments including MAFF who have an interest. I do not know whether that satisfies my noble friend.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I thank my noble friend for that reply. However to me the idea that they will be consulted without writing it into the Bill means that it is something which can be avoided. I think that it would he better if, when considering these matters, the noble Lord looked at it again to see whether or not it could not be a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State for the Environment to have representatives from those two departments, and I particularly press the Scottish representative for Scotland.
Lord Melchett: It occurs to me that those who have, as I do, the interests of agriculture at heart are trying to have their cake and eat it. We have already had the MAFF issuing licences; endless exclusions both in emergency and under licence for agricultural operations, and no obligation to consult the NCC in

87
all this. Now there must be an obligation written in to consult MAFF or DAS. I wonder whether this is not pushing it a bit too far. For example, I would be interested to know from the noble Baroness how many agricultural Acts of Parliament and Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts have requirements written into them that the NCC, the wildlife bodies and those interested in the conservation of wildlife should be consulted before grants arc given, before things are set out; that they will all be represented on every advisory body that the Ministry of Agriculture sets up for whatever purpose. If we are going to be fair and everybody is to be represented on everybody else's committees, then let us have it both ways. But if that is not to be the case, then I would suggest with the Government that this is left as it is.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I could tell the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that on quite a few occasions the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State act jointly, not only in this Bill but in the Local Government Bill as well. Here under Clause 15 they act jointly and it seems to me that perhaps it would be more logical that if they act jointly in Clause 15 they should act jointly to appoint those bodies who are going to advise them. It is not a vitally important point, but there is a definite precedent for it and I think for them to be seen to be consulting with the Minister of Agriculture may help a little. There is certainly a precedent for it.
Lord Melchett: My question was whether there are agricultural Acts where the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture act jointly to appoint advisers to agricultural advisory bodies. The noble Lord is saying that in a Wildlife Bill there should be that provision the other way round. I am simply asking for a bit of equity.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the noble Lord has misled the Committee unintentionally again when he referred to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not having to take the advice of the NCC. In fact, it clearly states in Clause 15(9)—he was referring to licences at the time—that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State shall from time to time consult. So that point must now be cleared up to the Committee's satisfaction.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I hope that the Government will think about this. I have no idea how many of the various societies to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred are on statutory bodies. My point was really that as regards anything of this kind which affects agriculture the Ministers concerned should be consulted. There are a lot of things about which they do not need to be consulted, but on these particular matters, they do need to be consulted. Although I shall not press the amendment, I hope that the Government will think about the matter as something which, so to speak, completes the picture in a fairer manner.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I think that we have had evidence
88
of land use anyway, because the Department of the Environment on some issues, especially road building—I know that this is a bit of a red herring—has been slightly lax in consulting the Ministry of Agriculture. I am sure that with the assurance which my noble friend has given, and bearing that small point in mind, there will be normal and reasonable consultation.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 346 to 346D not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 346E:
Page 20, line 21, after (" it ") insert (" and on any question on which it considers it should offer its advice ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple amendment to which I hope the Government will agree. It makes this advisory business a two-way affair. It need not necessarily be the Secretary of State just summoning the advisory body, but when the advisory body feels like it, it can approach him with suggestions, and so on. I do not think that I need say any more. It is a very straightforward amendment. and it seems to me to be very sensible.
Lord Craigton: I should like to support the amendment. It is a very important point. If the advisory body thinks that something ought to be said to the Secretary of State, it ought to have statutory power to do so. Any one of us who knows about advisory bodies knows that they will be hampered unless they have this power. I very much support this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: This amendment would enable an advisory body not only to give advice on any question pertaining to the protection of birds upon which its opinion had been sought, but also upon any such matter upon which it may feel it should profer advice. Although there is a provision similar to this in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 which when I quoted it to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he said was not a good thing—but slightly more recently, when it became more profitable to him, he rather enjoyed it more—there has not been one in a Protection of Birds Act.
However, I doubt whether this has ever stopped the advisory committees on the protection of birds from giving the advice that they thought should be given and whether the advisory bodies, which will operate under the Bill when enacted, will be so prevented. There will always be some means of the advisory body injecting the advice requested of it. However, there may well be some value in this being written into the Bill and so, if the Government may, we will take it away and arrange for a Government amendment at a later stage.
Lord Melchett: That is marvellous. Perhaps I could put the record straight. The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act was a marvellous Act, but from time to time its implementation by the Department of the Environment has not been all that we had hoped. However, I am sure that it is improving all the time,

89
particularly with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, there to look after our interests.
Baroness David: I am grateful for that response. I think it is a pity that it could not be accepted right away, but we will take the next best thing. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 347:
Page 20, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(" (5) An advisory body established under subsection (i)(a) shall publish reports relating to the performance by it of its duty under subsection (4).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 347. This would leave out subsection (5) and redraft it, simply in order to establish that an advisory body should publish reports relating to the performance of its duties under subsection (4); in other words, it should publish a report of the advice that it has given the Secretary of State on any question which the Secretary of State has referred to the advisory body. I hope that everyone will see the advantage of these advisory bodies producing some published reports which all of us can see so that we know what advice they have given, and what use is being made of them by the Secretary of State, the Ministry of Agriculture or whoever it might happen to be, and that it should not be a matter of discretion whether people publish information but—and I hope that this is now accepted both by my party and the party opposite, although neither of us has done much about it so far—that we can encourage open government and put a duty on people to produce reports so that we all know what they are up to. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this particular issue. It seems to me that on the whole British Governments are obsessed with secrecy and with not allowing things to be published. The temptation to murmur "confidentiality" et cetera on this will overtake some civil servant as night follows day and he will advise his Minister accordingly. Whether the greater blue winged bustard, or whatever it may be, is actually protected or what advice he is given on its protection cannot be anything other than satisfactorily be kept in the open . After all, there is nothing secret about it and I would strongly recommend my noble friend to accept this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I should also like to support this amendment. I was thinking that there may be a matter of expense, but the report could be very short and still be informative. Unless we have reports of this sort, those of us in the conservation world —I nearly said industry—will find it much more difficult to do our work.
The Earl of Avon: Although I cannot go along with my noble friends, when I have completed my reply I think that they will realise that this is not necessary. The responsibility for advisory bodies rests with the department, including the publishing of any report prepared by these bodies. But Government would not wish to accept that the Executive's hands should
90
be tied over what is required to be published, which would be the effect of the amendment.
However, we have a duty to report annually to the European Commission, and that report will be published. Furthermore, the Nature Conservancy Council, which, as I announced in opening the Second Reading debate, the Government intend shall take over the duties of the Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds and the Scientific Authority for Animals, is statutorily required to publish an annual report. Therefore, I think that we cover all the situations which are likely to occur, and with that clarification I hope that the noble Lord may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Parts of that reply seem extremely satisfactory with regard to the number of reports which will be published. But I should like to ask why the Secretary of State's hands should not be tied in order to publish something. The noble Earl did not produce a single reason why this should not happen. It seems to me to be a very good idea. However, I suppose that it is not all that germane, as the other alternative arrangements are satisfactory. It is exactly typical of what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was saying; Governments saying, "We must not have our hands tied by having to publish material for the benefit of the public ". It is an instinctive reaction, and it is to be deprecated.
Lord Craigton: As I understood it my noble friend on the Front Bench said, "That is all right. They don't have to publish the report because the information will be given elsewhere, or in some other way ". If that were so then surely it should have been made, "publish or cause to be published ", rather than they themselves publishing. I still was not very satisfied by the noble Earl's reply.
Lord Melchett: I had exactly the same worry as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. These advisory bodies are now going to be set up and serviced by the NCC. The Nature Conservancy Council produces an excellent annual report as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said, but it is already fairly lengthy and has I do not know how many endless appendices at the back, with a lot of technical and detailed stuff in them. I cannot see how they can possibly include it in that, unless it is going to be a great deal lengthier and more costly to produce detailed reports of all these advisory bodies' activities and the advice that they have given. The NCC's annual report, well produced, a glossy report with a colour cover and high quality paper seems totally the wrong vehicle for it. The sort of thing one would imagine these advisory committees producing would be a typewritten document which would simply be duplicated for those who are particularly interested, and would contain details of the questions that have been referred to them and the advice they have given on those questions. We are talking about a totally different vehicle. I hope that the noble Earl may look at that point again.
The earlier part of his assurance that the report that the Government have to make to the EEC will be published was very welcome indeed, and I am grateful for that, although I suspect that if the Government had

91
not published it the EEC would, but I do not want to be so churlish as to make any such suggestion. I hope that the noble Earl will look at this question of the advisory committees again, because I cannot believe that the NCC's annual report is the right place for them to have their activities reported on.
The Earl of Onslow: Paragraph (a) of this Clause says, "may establish any body or bodies …". It seems to me that the amount of bodies that can be established is so wide and so varied that they can go down to advising on some very limited and fairly local aspects. Under those circumstances I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that their reports should not just be tagged on and make the NCC's report that much bigger.
The Earl of Avon: I rather suspect that we may not have thought through how what may become the two sub-societies will report. I think we can take on board what the noble Lord has said and see to it, but I do not honestly think it need be written into this Bill in this way.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: What the noble Earl said a few moments ago about tying the hands of the Executive because an advisory committee is commissioned to make its report public is going, around Ministers somewhat like a password. We heard this also in connection with the Protection of Laboratory Animals Bill. Since when have Ministers been afraid of advice, and since when need they be afraid of the publication of the advice they get? We ate supposed to be in favour of more open government, but really and truly what Ministers seem to want is not open government but open and shut government.
I hope that we arc not going to hear this legend throughout all our proceedings when we suggest an advisory committee. Advisory committees are good things to have. They help Ministers make up their minds, although on the whole it is not advice that Ministers need so much as willpower. If you ask a civil servant what he wants from a Minister, he says "decisions". That suggests that they have great difficulty in getting them from Ministers at times. I do not want to delay the Committee, but it rang a bell when I heard those words, having heard them before more than once in connection with the Protection of Laboratory Animals Bill, and I have no doubt that we are going to hear them further. I have not mentioned the word "quango" yet, but I do not think we shall want to prejudice the proceedings by introducing that.
The Earl of Onslow: They are protected under Schedule 1.
Lord Melchett: I do not think we ought to spend too long on this because the hour is getting late and all of us want to make progress. I do not think anybody is entirely happy with what the noble Earl has said, except possibly the officials who wrote the brief for him, and I hope they will have been shamed into changing their advice before we reach the next stage of the Bill. There is not very much in this, but there is a point that does require further attention. If the
92
noble Earl cannot address his mind to it between now and Report stage, we shall try to put down an amendment which meets the point, but I hope that the Government may be able to give us some further assurance which will make that unnecessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 347A, 347AA and 347B not moved.]
9.14 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 348:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert (", including a person or persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of voluntary organisations interested in wildlife conservation.").
The noble Lord said: This raises another quite small point. I hope it could be made clear in the Bill that the voluntary organisations interested in wildlife conservation will be consulted before a person is appointed to an advisory body established under subsection (1)(a). As noble Lords will know, some concern has been expressed at the thought of the NCC taking over the role of setting up these advisory bodies. We have had certain assurances, but I suggest it would go a long way towards reassuring the voluntary movement—even if there were a change of heart on the part of those at present in the NCC, and I am sure we have every confidence in them—if the Bill made it clear that the voluntary movement would be consulted as well as the NCC having a role to play. After all, at the moment to some extent the advisory committees are seen as holding a slightly central position between on the one hand the Government's statutory advisers, the NCC, and on the other the voluntary conservation movement with the millions of people throughout the country who are members of those organisations and whom they represent. That will no longer be the case because the advisory bodies will come under the NCC. I suggest, therefore, that the reassurance I seek would be useful to have in the Bill. I am sure it is already catered for but that does not remove the importance of including it in the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: One of the features of the advisory bodies, which have been so valuable in making the working of the Protection of Birds Acts as effective as they have been, is the range of experience and interest of their members; conservationists, protectionists, farmers, aviculturists and many other groups of people concerned with and affected by birds, have known that the Advisory Committees on the Protection of Birds look at matters not with a sectional or limited view but to achieve a right balance between the many competing and proper concerns in our community.
We feel it would be quite wrong to select for express mention only the voluntary organisations interested in wildlife preservation. At the same time, it does not seem necessary to include a long list of bodies whose claim to be consulted is already recognised. Any attempt at an exhaustive list would of course prejudice the position of relevant bodies who do not yet exist but who may come into being in the future. While, therefore, we are in sympathy with, and intend to carry out the meaning of the amendment, we should prefer it not to be pressed.
Lord Melchett: That sounded like an explicit assurance. I should like to see it in black and white in Hansard before expressing my gratitude to the noble Earl too fulsomely, but I think he has met the point I wished to make and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I wish to express a small measure of disquiet in so far as this clause is expressly concerned with birds. I recognise, first, that the Bill re-enacts the Protection of Birds Acts and, secondly, that there is a European Community directive on wild birds, but I have previously sought assurance, in particularly when we were discussing Clause 15, that the conditions of licensing exceptions to Clause 9 animals, those coming under Schedule 5, should be treated with the same consideration as those relating to birds.
My noble friend Lord Avon mentioned that under the European Community's birds directive there is a requirement for an annual report. I note that under the Berne Convention, which can be taken as the only international document which supports conservation activities for animals other than birds, the report is requested once every two years and not once a year, so there is an anomaly here. There has been good mention of the Wild Birds Advisory Committee and of its satisfactory functioning and brief mention has been made of the Scientific Authority for Animals, but I am not at all clear whether that authority will be an advisory body under the same terms for animals other than birds. I would remind the Committee that animals other than birds far exceed birds in number and that some of the conservation problems which they face are in many cases as yet unknown to us and are therefore uncharted. I would therefore seek a certain degree of assurance from my noble friend the Minister on this point.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Although it is a much more minor point, I should like to know whether subsection (6) means anything at all. Presumably, even if it were not included in the Bill, the Secretary of State would be able to "consult such persons or bodies" as be thought fit. With that subsection included in the Bill, as I see it, he need not consult any persons or bodies if he does not see fit. Has the subsection any purpose whatever?
The Earl of Avon: I should like to read what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said, since I am not absolutely certain that what I am going to say covers his point entirely. The Nature Conservancy Council will be the overall body—I hesitate to say, "mother body"—which will be looking after the Scientific Authority for Animals, and to that extent anything which applies in Clause 21 would of course apply equally to the Scientific Authority for Animals through the NCC. If that is not entirely what my noble friend was getting at, I shall read his speech and let him know.
94
Clause 21(6) is concerned with appointing a member to the advisory body. It allows the Secretary of State to consult whom he wishes in order to find someone actually to sit on the body.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: He can do that, anyway.
The Earl of Avon: Now he can do it twice.
Lord Melchett: That question is not quite as important as the point that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, raised. I should be interested to hear what the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench has to say to his noble friend after he has read his noble friend's speech. It would be very helpful for us to know whether we are talking about simply the question of the Scientific Authority for Animals being reconstituted by the NCC, or whether there are to be dramatic changes in membership involving the range of people on the body. I do not expect an answer at the moment, but I think that that was at least part of what the noble Earl was getting at. If the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench is to consider that, I wonder whether he can let us know, too, of his deliberations.
The Earl of Avon: I gladly undertake to do that.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Functions of Nature Conservancy Council]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 349:
Page 20, line 35, leave out from (" shall ") to second (" and ") in line 36 and insert (" five years after the passing of this Act ").
The noble Baroness said: As it stands, the Nature Conservancy Council has an obligation 10 years after the passing of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, and every five years thereafter, to review Schedules 5 and 7. The amendment proposes that the review should be made five years after the passing of this Bill. That would not mean that the review would be made at a very different time; in fact, it would be made only a year later. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 is to be repealed by this Bill, and we shall have new schedules after the enacting of the Bill. Therefore, it would seem to be rather tidier and more logical to make the requirement dependent on this Bill, rather than on the old Act which is to be repealed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I would hope that the schedules will be kept constantly under review. Things can suddenly become endangered for some reason which we cannot foresee. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke about this earlier. We have had before us the example of the Egyptian collared dove which at one moment was totally non-existent and the next moment was a complete pest species. It is very important to keep the schedules constantly under review because if the review takes place only every five years, there will be a temptation to sit hack and say, "Oh, well, we need do nothing about it for another five years". That is just a thought, for what it is worth.
The Earl of Avon: I think that perhaps my noble friend's point could be covered by the fact that we can

95
amend the schedules at any time, and all species will really be kept under review. With regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, I do not think that there is anything here that the Government would wish to oppose. The effect of this amendment as the noble Baroness said, would be to delay the next mandatory report required from the Nature Conservancy Council to 1986, when otherwise it would happen in 1985. But I am sure, as the noble Baroness said, we could live with the delay for a year, particularly as it is open to the NCC to advise the Secretary of State at any time. Unfortunately, the amendment refers to the "passing" of the Act. This is inconsistent with Clause 54(2), which provides for the Act to be brought into force by commencement order. I will undertake that the Government will put down a suitable amendment at Report stage, and I hope that with that undertaking the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I am very grateful for that response and in view of it I will withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 350 not moved.]
9.27 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 20, line 37, after (" and ") insert (", after consulting a person or persons appearing to the Nature Conservancy Council to be representative of voluntary organisations interested in wildlife conservation,").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that Amendment No. 350 has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List, I beg to move Amendment No. 351. This amendment is on a very similar point to the one I made earlier, but I hope it still has rather more merit than the previous amendment to subsection (6), which the noble Earl did not accept. This would ensure that, in carrying out the quinquennial reviews of the schedules to this Bill—and they have an important status as formal reviews of the schedules, as opposed to the constant monitoring which the noble Earl mentioned—the NCC would consult people from the voluntary sector who are interested in this question. I think this undoubtedly would be the practice of the NCC, but again, it would be a us eful reassurance to the many people in the voluntary movement who are watching the progress of this Bill with great interest that they would have the opportunity in five years' time to have another say. I hope, too, that the Government might occasionally be seized of the advantages of giving some such reassurance to the voluntary sector, which I have always understood this particular Government were rather keener on than they have appeared to be during the passage of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: I should like to support this amendment. Just now we are very great friends with the NCC, but this Bill has got to last a very long time and the NCC fluctuates up and down according to the amount of money allowed them by the Government or the personnel who are running the department. On the whole, the conservation bodies are fairly satis-96
fied at the moment—very satisfied—with the cooperation of the NCC, but taking the long view (and this Bill has to last a long time) I believe this is a most worthwhile insertion into the Bill, and I very much support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right when he says we like voluntary bodies, but we also like giving people a free hand and not putting too many obligations into a Bill. As the noble Lord is well aware, and as my noble friend behind me has just said, the Nature Conservancy Council at the moment consults individual experts, scientific bodies and voluntary organisations with the relevant knowledge. I am advised that the NCC, in arriving at its advice to the Secretary of State, already consults all these experts possessing relevant knowledge, and is indeed greatly dependent upon and appreciates the advice so freely given. We consider that a statutory requirement for the council to consult voluntary organisations interested in wildlife conservation to be unnecessary, and that the extent and manner of consultation carried out by the council before giving its advice to the Secretary of State is a matter which can safely be left to the council's discretion. In this we would prefer, as one of my noble friends behind me said earlier, to trust the NCC. I hope that my noble friend Lord Craigton will agree, and that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not wish to press this particular point.
Lord Craigton: I do not entirely agree with the noble Earl because, as he himself said, at the moment the NCC consults. That is quite true, but there will be other moments before this Bill is changed, and I should still be much happier to see something of this nature in the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I could say quickly to my noble friend that under the clause that we have just been discussing, the advisory bodies are very much working with the Secretary of State. If he found that the advice coming was not correct, then he would have ways and means of changing it.
Lord Melchett: I am not happy. It seems to me to reflect the double standards that run through this. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pointed out, we have a paragraph in the previous clause which says that the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, consult people that he is already at liberty to consult. It adds nothing. We are quite happy to see that in the Bill applying to the Secretary of State. When it comes to asking the NCC to consult the voluntary organisations, all of a sudden, we must trust them, we must not put anything in the Bill to tie their hands or even imply that they are not going to do this. They may or may not do it.
The Government of the noble Earl's party is in power at the moment. I might not like the people that his Government appoint to the NCC. I might not trust them to consult the voluntary organisations. I suppose it is possible that at some point in the future we on these Benches might be sitting where the noble Earl now sits. We might appoint people to the NCC that

97
he would not trust to consult the voluntary organisations Would it not make both of us happier if there were in the Bill a provision such as that proposed?
My other point—one which the noble Earl did not touch on but which I think deserves consideration—is that just occasionally during the passage of this Bill, perhaps once every two or three weeks, the Government might consider allowing the voluntary organisations to have some reassurance actually written into the Bill. We are allowing all sorts of reassurance to appear for other interest groups and, in particular, the agriculturists from whom we have heard a lot during the day, particularly on licensing. For them reassurances and escape clauses have been written in; and we have to some extent agreed with that. But from time to time there should be a little "give" from the Government in the other direction.
This is not a major request. It is not going to alter existing practice; it simply gives an assurance for the future. One would hope, in a spirit of compromise, and in that of making rapid progress, that the Government could have given us some assurance from time to time. This seems to be the one eminently suitable for it.
Baroness White: May I support what has been said by my noble friend? I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee will recognise that voluntary organisations do not have vast resources at their disposal. In fact, at the present time, with inflation, it is extremely difficult for some of them to maintain even the very small supporting staff they have to work with. As their name implies, voluntary organisations are mainly voluntary. A few of them can afford to employ absolutely basic staff, but no more. If they are not called into consultation, it is very difficult for them to keep track of what is going on.
As your Lordships know, I speak primarily from Welsh experience. Anybody who knows anything about the Principality will realise that there may be a matter of considerable concern in one part of Wales which is not necessarily known, even to the NCC officers, in other parts of Wales. The NCC headquarters in Wales is at Bangor. There may be an acute problem in, say, Gwent, and it may be that the regional officer is aware of it, but not necessarily so. I know that there is considerable feeling among the voluntary organisations that there are situations in which they are not consulted unless they happen to hear what is going on and are then able to pursue such crumbs of information as they may be able to obtain. When they do that, they normally have the warmest co-operation, but it puts a great strain on the voluntary bodies if all the time they have to take the initiative themselves.
The Earl of Cranbrook: May I pick up a phrase from the noble Baroness and assert with confidence that unless the NCC—however vastly it may spread, however enormous its army of research workers may become, and whatever funds may be given it—keeps in close touch with the voluntary bodies, the NCC itself will be unable to keep track of what is happening to the wildlife in this country. It is the voluntary bodies who have their ears to the ground, their noses to the grindstone, or whatever one may call it. These voluntary bodies
98
themselves are out there witnessing what is happening to the wildlife of this country.
The Earl of Avon: We are quite happy to consider this amendment. There is no problem on that at all. I was vaguely turning over in my mind some of the remarks which the noble Baroness made. There are so many voluntary organisations that one cannot tell whether the one which she had in mind might be spoken to at that time. We shall certainly have a look at this and see whether we can write anything in.
Lord Melchett: I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Members of the Committee and the noble Baroness who supported the amendment when it looked as if it might sink without trace. The Government have agreed to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 352 not moved.]
9.36 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 353:
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
(" (4) It shall be the duty of the Council to investigate offences under this Part and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 or any Order or Regulations made under those enactments, and to advise and assist the Police and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the enforcement by them of those provisions.").
The noble Lord said: I am most concerned that this Bill makes no provision for the proper investigation of offences against this most comprehensive and excellent legislation. Could we not be at risk of being accused of just paying lip service to wildlife protection and conservation by omitting from our legislation provision for the investigation of infringements of highly specialised Acts?
At present, the investigation and pursuance of offences falls largely on the voluntary bodies and, in particular, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Without the efforts of the RSPB and the RSPCA, little or no meaningful enforcement of wildlife legislation would occur. This is not a criticism of the police or customs officers, it is just that they have not the time and the necessary technical knowledge to investigate. When an offence is brought to the knowledge of the police or customs by voluntary bodies, they are prepared to act. I wonder whether anyone thinks that that is a satisfactory situation.
The RSPB and the RSPCA are charities and such organisations are not well off. Being non-statutory bodies, they have no access to official records, but they have become the main investigating bodies for offences under our existing wildlife legislation. Each year they take a considerable number of prosecutions, which I believe demonstrates that these laws need enforcing.
Here are some of the major prosecutions over the past nine months: three Welshmen fined a total of £600 for wilfully disturbing peregrine falcons; a Sunderland man fined £500 for being in possession of two recently-taken peregrine falcons; two Yorkshiremen fined a total of £1,420 on two occasions for taking the eggs of wild birds including those of a golden eagle; a Cumbrian man fined a total of £210 for selling wild birds, and a London man fined £270 for trapping wild birds.
In all this work, the Nature Conservancy Council takes no active role in investigations as do its counterparts in the USA, New Zealand and Australia. The Nature Conservancy Council could be a tremendous help. Under the amendment, the NCC is charged with the duty of investigating offences under the new Bill and of assisting the customs and police. I know that money is short; I know the difficulties. What I want to ask the Minister to do and what I say is this: let us get the authority on to this Bill. The NCC, once this amendment is in the Bill, will do the best it can within the staff and financial limits that it has. Let us get this into the Bill now and give the NCC the powers. When times are better, we shall get this Bill much better enforced in the country. I beg to move.
Lord Melcheft: It might speed up matters, which I know we are all anxious to do, if I speak to our Amendment No. 354 at the same time as Amendment No. 353 because it covers exactly the same point but in slightly more detail. Indeed, part of my Amendment No. 463, which will be coming later, would place an obligation on the Nature Conservancy Council to enforce offences and perhaps it might be convenient if we were to take that particular bit of Amendment No. 463 at the same time.
I do not wish to add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said in so ably moving this amendment. It seems to me something of a scandal that, although we were speaking a moment ago so highly of the efforts of voluntary organisations, we should rely in this country on two royal societies, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in effect to enforce the bulk of our wildlife legislation. This is not a task to which voluntary organisations are suited in this country or anywhere else. Regretfully, we must face the fact that a number of countries, and in particular the United States, have wildlife enforcement agencies which do the job a great deal more effectively, inevitably, than voluntary organisations in this country can because of their very limited resources of staff and their lack of legal powers. I do not think that any of us are being unrealistic enough to think that we are going to get a new wildlife enforcement agency set up by the Government next week with a staff of a couple of hundred, with adequate finance and legal powers, and so on. I know that would fly in the face of the Government's mistaken policy in these matters. What I think it is fair to ask the Government to do when they bring forward a major Bill on wildlife and the countryside—the first Government Bill we have ever had on this sort of subject and certainly by far the most comprehensive ever dealt with by the British Parliament—is at least to make a gentle nod in the direction of effective enforcement of the legislation they have introduced.
I think the general consensus of all of us who have thought about this is that the right organisation to do this would be the NCC. They could do it very simply to start with. The RSPB, which is responsible for so much marvellous enforcement of the Protection of Birds Acts, does it with a staff of four or five people and an expenditure of very little money. That is all that one would expect of the NCC—that they should
100
be enforcing this legislation simply, to start with, by investigating offences and gathering information. I hope that some of these amendments on enforcement will commend themselves to the Government.
Lord Chelwood: I am not at all happy about these amendments. Certainly I think they are well meant and I understand the reasoning behind them, but I think they are mistaken and should be resisted.
The Nature Conservancy Council shares all the concern that has been expressed during the debates on this Bill on Committee stage and Second Reading. It is greatly concerned about the enforcement of hard-won legislation to safeguard wildlife; but these amendments would place on the NCC functions and duties which are not in keeping with the Council's essential role, their statutory role, of giving science-based advice on nature conservation.
Enforcement needs to be tackled by a combination of effort by the official agencies—the police, Customs and Excise, the NCC and the voluntary movements, the RSPB and the RSPCA, to whose work in this field I pay a genuine and glowing tribute, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation, which does good work as well in all the counties in this country, and other appropriate bodies. The public at large also have an important responsibility to obey the law, to observe it and to try to do their best to ensure that others observe it as well.
The NCC are doing much more in this field than is perhaps generally realised. Within their existing scientific and advisory remit, they prepare general and specialist advice for Customs and Excise, including producing some very well-drafted technical manuals. They have set up a series of referral networks, as I think I can best call them, of experts on whom the police and Customs and Excise can, and do, call. They have arranged, and will continue to arrange, for police forces to be trained in the wildlife laws—that is, specially chosen people—and they are also, of course, giving wide publicity to the law as it stands at present, and as it will stand after this Bill becomes an Act, so that the public can take heed of the law. The NCC's staff on the ground are under instruction to report offences which they observe, or which they are reliably informed about. They are ready to bring prosecutions if they think that the police have failed to do so and should have done so.
But more important than what I have said so far is the sticking point which comes, in my view, when it is proposed—and I am rolling these three amendments together—that the NCC must be responsible for enforcement, for investigations, for appointing wildlife policemen and for gathering information on offences. All these things are proposed in these three amendments that we are discussing together. Taking on the wider role envisaged by the amendments would be a great burden on our already overstretched resources. Our resources are stretched to the limit. It is all very well for some of my noble friends, and for noble Lords opposite, to say "Give them some more money". We would dearly like it, but we do not see it coming just at present, in spite of the goodwill that we have from the Secretary of State.
To enforce the law would he prejudicial to the NCC's role as advisers to public bodies, to landowners and

101
to individuals. Our position is, perhaps, analogous to that of ADAS who, I believe, have consistently sought to confine their role to that of giving advice and assistance to farmers, rather than becoming concerned with enforcement issues related to cruelty to animals and animal health.
In conclusion—perhaps this is a glimpse of the obvious, and I hope I may be forgiven for it—passing laws that cannot be properly enforced is really deplorable and a foolish exercise. Enforcement of wildlife legislation, as I am the first to admit and agree, is very far from adequate. I greatly regret this and so does the NCC. There is a need, I think—I have always thought so from my RSPB days, when I used to be president— for a small specialist wildlife investigation and enforcement unit with real statutory powers, probably under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. We are not going to have one just yet; certainly not next week, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. It is badly needed and I hope that it will come soon. Meanwhile, all we can do is to make more strenuous efforts to co-ordinate the work of voluntary and official bodies, in which the NCC will play their full part. This will have to serve, even though it is second best. I hope that these amendments will be resisted.
9.48 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: We are very happy with the principles raised by my noble friend Lord Craigton, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Milverton, and we are pleased that they accept the principle that the police and customs are the proper enforcement agencies for the provisions in this Bill and in the 1976 Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. We are also receptive to the concept of the Nature Conservancy Council investigating alleged offences. The council already provides advice towards these ends and we see it playing an increasing part in doing so.
Where we differ from the views reflected in the amendment proposed by my noble friend is in the need to enshrine the involvement of the NCC in the legislation. My noble friend Lord Chelwood has spoken to this in some depth. Our view, and that of the council, is that this would unduly restrict their role. They do not wish to have some of their activities listed as duties and some as functions. They wish to retain their ability to make their own decisions. The Government were made well aware, during the extensive consultations before this Bill was drafted, that many protectionists and conservationists would favour the kind of wildlife enforcement service which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, requires. Representations were also made to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure.
We have had to consider two questions: first, is the present principle, that the police and custom are the official enforcement agencies, unsound; and, secondly, how can we best improve enforcement? The Government consider that the creation of a specialist enforcement agency could not be justified and that, in any event, it would certainly be wrong to confer on it all the powers of the police. That leaves us with looking for ways of improving the ability of the police and the Customs and Excise to carry out their duties, and here we see the NCC playing an
102
important role in providing supportive expertise. Liaison by the Nature Conservancy Council with the Home Office, the police and customs is much improved. Training assistance is being developed. The Nature Conservancy Council as well as the Department of the Environment keeps lists of experts.
Finally, throughout the Bill we have tried to make the evasion of the law harder and its detection easier. A certain amendment passed earlier today enforces this, perhaps more than I thought. For offences of this kind, which by their nature occur in out of the way places, the most important enforcement aid is the general public, particularly those members of it who are deeply committed to wildlife, whether as bird watchers, falconers, aviculturalists or simply as countrymen who accept the responsibility for our marvellous heritage of wildlife. By regulating and so protecting their interests this Bill gives to the adherents new incentives to ensure that the unscrupulous minority does not get away with it. I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Craigton: From the length of the noble Earl's reply it is quite clear that here we have a very difficult point. I do not feel that I could ask the Committee to divide upon it. I will read what the noble Earl has said and think about it before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 354:
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
(" (4) The Council shall appoint such wildlife enforcement officers as they deem expedient for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Part and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and of any orders or regulations made under those enactments.
(5) For the enforcement of the provisions referred to in subsection (4) above every such officer shall be deemed to be a constable and to have the same powers and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as a constable duly appointed has and is subject to at common law or by statute.
(6) After section (1)(a)(iv) of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 (which concerns the functions of the Council) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
" (v) the enforcement of the provisions of Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1980 and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and of any orders or regulations made under those enactments, and ".").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Melchett has already spoken to this amendment, which I beg to move. At the same time I shall answer a few of the points which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and by the Minister.
I hope that we all agree that this Bill will be of no use unless the enforcement measures work. It will be just a piece of window dressing. Therefore we must have efficient enforcement. From what has been said it is clear that the Nature Conservancy Council does not want to take on this job of enforcement. However, may I remind the Committee that similar bodies to the Nature Conservancy Council—the wildlife departments of North America, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries—do take on this job?
It seems to me that the Nature Conservancy Council participates in all conservation matters except for

103
investigations and enforcement work. The fact that it is not so involved sometimes undermines its credibility with the voluntary nature conservation bodies and even with the police and customs, who sometimes use the voluntary bodies after being told by the Nature Conservancy Council that it cannot help. It seems illogical to suggest that investigations and enforcement responsibility will detract from the scientific work of the Nature Conservancy Council. That seems to me to depend on the research work which it does. I appreciate that the Nature Conservancy Council cannot afford it on its present budget, but somebody has got to pay for enforcement if we are agreed that enforcement is important and must be carried out. So it seems to me that resources could be given to the Nature Conservancy Council as well as to any other body.
To go back in history for a minute or two, I should like to remind the Committee of the support for the wildlife bodies taking on this duty. First may I refer to Cmnd. 7122, Conservation of Nature in England and Wales, July 1947. This was the report of the Wildlife Conservation Special Committee, chaired by Sir Julian Huxley, most of whose recommendations, such as the establishment of a biological service, were contained in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That committee considered the whole question of the enforcement of existing legislation and of any new wildlife legislation which it considered should be enacted. There were then very few acts on the statute book protecting wildlife, but the report had this to say:
"Where police action is necessary, we consider that reliance should be placed on the ordinary police rather than on wardens or other officers with special wildlife conservation enforcement functions".
Remember that then the full complexity of wildlife legislation was still over 30 years away. The Committee went on:
"except in national nature reserves where enforcement powers exercisable by the responsible officers would be essential".
Then I should like to look at a later point, the evidence which the Nature Conservancy gave to the Royal Commission on the Police in 1961. Virtually everything in its evidence supports what has been said today, particularly over the difficulties which the average police officer has in attempting to enforce wildlife legislation. I quote:
"Offences which most often occur in unfrequented places, especially on land where there is no right of access, obviously present special enforcement difficulties to any police force. So also do offences which can only be detected or dealt with on a basis of highly specialised knowledge or training, and offences which are normally committed by exceptionally active mobile persons. Where all three of these factors are combined an all-purpose, conventional police force heavily burdened with more pressing claims is at a maximum disadvantage".
They continue by saying that in such circumstances,
"… it becomes difficult to avoid the situation in which the law and the police are brought into contempt".
104
The Nature Conservancy reviewed in its evidence the inadequate enforcement of wildlife legislation at that time, and concluded by offering four suggestions, one of these being the provision of specialist enforcement officers. I quote:
"mention must be made of a solution, widely adopted in other advanced countries, of having a corps of specialist enforcement officers in the form of mobile wardens or rangers".
Analogies were then drawn with traffic wardens. They continued:
"such a corps would have to be able to operate freely throughout the country".
The evidence contained a quantity of examples where such officers were employed abroad. Admittedly this was one of four options which the Nature Conservancy put forward at the time, but it now seems quite ridiculous that the NCC—who now undertake nature conservation on behalf of the nation—should plead that it cannot accept the responsibility of enforcing the provisions in this Bill. I think if we are to have proper enforcement this is probably the way to get it.
The Earl of Avon: I have listened with interest to what the noble Baroness said. Some of it seems very foreign to the ways of this country. As I said earlier, I appreciate fully the need for the enforcement, but I believe that for the moment we must leave it to our own law enforcement officers to carry on and see whether the extra enforcement to be put into this Bill will help in any way to control the poachers, or whatever they be. We believe that local authorities can and should play a positive role in bringing home to the general public what is going on in their own areas, but I think that at the moment we must leave the law enforcement officers to carry on and to see whether the better powers contained in this Bill will be effective.
Lord Melchett: We will, of course, withdraw this amendment as well, but I hope that the Government, and in particular the NCC, will have a look at what my noble friend said about their attitude not very long ago when they seemed to be pressing, not for something foreign to this country, but for exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and we in this amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, have been pressing for ourselves. In other words, not so long ago the NCC seemed to be entirely with us. They have now done a U-turn and I think it would be helpful to have an explanation. I would suggest to all those who have taken an interest in this matter that it might be worthwhile our getting together and coming forward with a single amendment at Report stage if we do not have any more satisfactory response from the NCC in the meantime, which I am afraid we shall not have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Functions of Local authorities]:
[Amendment No. 355 not moved.]
9.59 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 356:
Page 21, line 10, after ("schoolchildren") insert (",farmers and landowners").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple point which I hope will commend itself to all sides of the Committee. Noble Lords will remember that in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act a provision was inserted, as I remember it, because I was speaking for the Government at that stage, rather against the Government's initial Bill, but we were trying to be as helpful as we could in those days. Noble Lords were very keen that we should pass round, particularly to young people, information about the wild birds and wild creatures protected under the Act. It was felt important that information—for example, that uprooting any wildflower then became illegal—should be known to young people, and that particular animals were going to be protected should also be known to young people. What the Government did was to pay for copies of two posters which had been produced by voluntary organisations to be sent to every secondary school in England and Wales, and I think that was widely welcomed.
Turning to this Bill and the amendment, it seemed to me, on re-reading this, that this Bill introduces an enormous amount of new legislation which affects particularly those who live in the countryside. We are going to continue to argue about exactly what the legislation should be, but none of us can deny its importance to farmers and landowners. Their right to do things on their land will be altered in some respects; the rights of other people to do things on their land will be altered in some respects. It seemed to me very important that if we were going to give information about the passing of this Act to anybody it should be to farmers and landowners, as well as to young people—and I am delighted that that provision remains in the Bill, as re-enacted, unaltered. I hope this would be something that would commend itself to all sides of the Committee. As it appears on the list of amendments, it may appear slightly denigrating farmers and landowners, but that is not the intention; it is simply the positioning in the Bill. It is meant to be helpful to all concerned, and I hope it will be welcomed by all concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: When the noble Lord comes to move all his many amendments under Part II, I hope he will bear that particular philosophy in mind; that it is making it very much more difficult for us.
The Earl of Avon: We can well sympathise with the intention of this amendment, and I was indeed interested to hear Lord Melchett's comments about how children got into it in the first place. Farmers and landowners, of course, have a key role to play in wildlife conservation. However, farmers and landowners are members of the public and would be included in any steps which local authorities thought it expedient to take to publicise the provisions of Part I of the Bill, and any orders made thereunder, as required by Clause 23. Schoolchildren are only specifically mentioned because it is
106
thought that they are a section of the public which might otherwise get overlooked. In no way do we think the farmers will get overlooked, as the noble Lord, I am sure, will agree. It goes without saying that it is particularly important to educate schoolchildren about the matters in question. Bearing that in mind, I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Melchett: In view of the rather mixed reaction the amendment got from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 357:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 and Agriculture Act 1970
. Sections 1(1) and 103 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 and the Agriculture Act 1970 respectively shall be amended by the insertion of the words "such advice to take into account nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests," after the words "agricultural matters".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to put into Acts of Parliament, the two Acts mentioned in the amendment, the requirement for what is now called ADAS, although under the 1944 Act it was referred to as the National Agricultural Advisory Service and under the 1970 Act as the National Agricultural Advisory Service, that they should, in giving advice to farmers and landowners, take into account nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests. Noble Lords will remember that we have in this House on many occasions debated the Strutt Report, whose recommendation that ADAS should take on this role would be implemented, I hope, by this amendment. Although we have debated it many times, the recommendation is a short one and I would like to read it. They said:
"The advisory and promotional role of ADAS be extended to include landscape and nature conservation, and provision made for the training of existing staff and, if necessary, the recruitment of specialist staff".
Those noble Lords who are particularly interested in agricultural matters will no doubt know that there was a policy review of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service carried out after the Strutt Report had been completed and published in January 1978. That review group said in paragraph 4.24:
"Whether or not Government undertakes further formal responsibilities affecting the service, ADAS will be bound to give full weight to environmental considerations in the course of its statutory advisory duties".
We then had some very detailed debates last year about the role of ADAS because of our debates on the changes in the farm capital grant scheme, where we were conservationists and farmers united against the proposed changes that the Government were trying to make, and unfortunately did make. At that stage the Government said that the changes that they were making would allow ADAS to fulfill the sort of role that my amendment envisages. They said explicitly that the staff who would no longer be looking at detailed grant applications before the building or whatever was put up, would be free to give advice on environmental and other matters. That has been repeated a number of times.
There is nothing controversial in the amendment. I hope that it is accepted by everybody that, whatever we may differ about in Part If of the Bill, it is useful for farmers and landowners to have advice, not only on agriculture but also on environmental and wildlife matters and that by far the best people to provide that advice are ADAS. Nobody who has anything to do with farming would dispute that. If anybody is going to provide advice ADAS officers are the best people to provide it.
The general intent behind the amendment was very strongly supported by the Minister of State, Mr. Monro, in another place on 10th November 1980, when he quoted a statement of intent that the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association produced three years ago called, Caring for the Countryside. He quoted part of that statement which said simply, briefly and succinctly, "Get advice" when addressing farmers about these particular problems. The Minister, Mr. Monro, went on to say at column 164:
"It is always open to the landowner or the farmer to seek advice from the local ADAS man",
when talking about the problems of destruction of wildlife.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said on Second Reading in your Lordships' House at column 1088—he was reminding me, in fact—that the Government:
"are committed to follow the conservation aspects which are laid down in the Strutt Report".
This amendment does no more than do what the noble Earl says that the Government are already doing, and I hope it will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Collison: I have not spoken before in this debate as much as I should have wished. I have stayed behind this evening briefly to give my support to this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Melchett. Your Lordships will be aware, because I have spoken of it before, that I was a member of the Strutt Committee. I would remind your Lordships that its report was well received by all sectors of the agricultural community and, indeed, by the amenity, environmental and conservationist interests as well. As my noble friend has mentioned, one of its main recommendations was that ADAS officers should be used to advise farmers and landowners on conservation, environmental and amenity matters. The object was, of course, to try to achieve a fair balance between the needs of agriculture and the desirability ofconserving and treasuring our natural and wildlife resources.
The Strutt Committee took a lot of evidence from all sectors of the agricultural community and I must say that we found that, by and large, the farmers and landowners would be only too willing to play their part. We felt—and indeed, they told us—that advice from ADAS would be very well received indeed. The general work of ADAS officers, as it now stands, is greatly appreciated by the farming community; that is to say, on technical and production issues. Their advice is seen as coming from people who are really concerned and interested—without any bias one way or the other—in agricultural matters. On top of that, because the ADAS officers meet the farmers on such a
108
friendly basis, they are regarded as friends and not in the least degree as a kind of policeman.
The Strutt Committee, therefore, believed that the contribution that they could make would be very well received indeed and that the officers of ADAS would be very welcome on the farms and on landowners' estates in order to give them some help and assistance in doing what they could to enhance the interests of the environment, amenity and conservation. I certainly hope that the Government will take very seriously indeed what Strutt said in this connection—and they, of course, mentioned other matters, to which we shall come later; for example, the question of footpaths and bulls—and make available any additional resources which may be required to enable the ADAS people to do this additional work properly. I am sure that they will do it well.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I think that this is a symbolic amendment. I should certainly like to support it. I think that we shall have to see in the future—and it will be a very good thing too—a major change in the relationship of agriculture, as it is seen by Government, to environment preservation, as it is seen by Government. We spend a very great deal of money piling up food mountains under the EEC's common agricultural policy when we could be spending exactly the same money paying farmers to produce a little less and to preserve the countryside. As it is, we expect them to do a very great deal without giving them much incentive. I have every feeling for those farmers who experience that problem and every admiration for those farmers who, in spite of the fact that they get no reward for it, do their duty by the countryside.
This is not the place and this is not the Bill in which we can do anything towards altering that. But in the meantime we can build bridges between the two sides. We can insert duties in the various Acts, one duty from one side of the argument into the Acts belonging to the other, and vice versa. I think that the amendment is an important one which I should like to support.
The Earl of Caithness: I should also like to support the amendment and it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this occasion. I would not comment further on the Strutt Report because I have spoken in depth on that before in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will be aware that under Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must, when it gives advice, have regard to nature conservation and the landscape. Therefore, it is already embodied in our legislation.
I should like to deal with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, when he said that there was precious little incentive for farmers. I think that we give them precious little credit for what they are doing on a voluntary basis to help the wildlife of this country. In recent months—indeed, over the last four or five years—I have been very impressed with how often they go to the MAFF and ADAS to seek advice on wildlife. We should bear this in mind much more in these discussions.
Lord Craigton: I think that this is an opportunity which ought not to be missed.
The Earl of Avon: I shall take the opportunity to ensure that it is not missed. I must confess to having been attracted by this amendment when I first read it on the Marshalled List. Not only does it make clear that the officers of the organisation which is established by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the provision of Section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 must take into account nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests when giving advice on agricultural matters, but it also makes clear to the general public that the obligation to do these things has, indeed, been placed upon the officers of ADAS.
Unfortunately, on closer inspection it became apparent that the new clause suffered from several disadvantages. In the first instance the drafting is defective in that the reference to the new clause to Section 103 of the Agriculture Act 1970 is irrelevant. The purpose of that section is merely to amend the main operative section which is Section 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944. Admittedly it will always be possible to redraft this amendment and put it in acceptable form for inclusion in the legislation, but we think that would be undesirable.
The reason is, as my noble friend said, that there is already an existing provision which does precisely the same task. I refer to Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968, which provides that in Clause 11 in the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, Government department, public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the national beauty and amenity of the countryside. Even to interfere with the wording of Section 11 would be scarcely a step forward. There is a great danger with provisions which require specified persons to take account of specified matters that they can be read as suggesting that these factors could not otherwise be taken into account or that they, or they alone, are the factors that must be taken into account. This I am sure does not reflect what is intended here. It is much better to leave the matter on the basis that the organisation set up under the 1944 Act will, in carrying out its duties, take account of all the factors which will probably be regarded as relevant.
In other words, what I am saying is that this requirement to take into account nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests when giving advice on agricultural matters is already covered, and is extremely wide-ranging in its application. Section 11 applies equally to the Minister of Agriculture, his junior Ministers, and to all the officials of that department when carrying out their duties in relation to land. By singling out ADAS in the statute in the way that this amendment proposes would, by placing the emphasis for these duties on ADAS, weaken the effect that this requirement has on everybody else in the Ministry. However, having said that, I accept entirely the force of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, supported by other noble Lords, and I will undertake to see if there is anything we can do in order to meet his points.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl
110
Section 11 is a total red herring. After the Strutt Committee sat for all the time they did, carefully considering this subject in the greatest detail, and producing a report which had unanimous support from farming, landowning and wildlife organisations, why did they have to be told, unfortunately, by the last Government and then by this, that while they accepted it in principle it could not be implemented for lack of staff? We were then told last year that the changes in the farm capital grant scheme would allow this power to be implemented, and we are then told it does not need anything doing at all because it was all in Section 11 all along. That simply cannot be the case, unless Strutt and his committee completely misled themselves about this, and the policy review of ADAS also misled themselves when they looked at it soon afterwards.
I think it would be valuable from everybody's point of view to have this clear statement in ADAS's functions, and if Section 11 is prayed in aid I would hope that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee would unite in saying that that was not good enough for the last Government and it should not be good enough for this Bill, because nobody else has ever tried to pretend that Section 11 covered this point. It quite clearly does not, and the Strutt Committee felt that it did not. The noble Earl said that he would look at the point. I am grateful to him for that. I hope we can come back with a Government amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 358:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Forestry Act 1967
. After subsection (1) of section 3 of the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) The Commissioners shall, in exercising their functions under this Act, take appropriate measures to conserve wildlife.".").
The noble Lord said: This is simply an attempt by me to implement one of the recommendations of the sub-committee on forestry of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. This is a bit of a cheek, I admit, as I was not a member of that Select Committee and some noble Lords present in the Chamber were. But I read it as an outside, with their report, with great interest. They made the point that the Forestry Commission's present management objectives are those which were first published in 1975, and the Select Committee said, at the end of paragraph 103 of their report:
"Although these objectives are set out clearly, no guidance is given on their relative importance even when they are not always compatible. The basic strategic and tactical implementation of that policy is left to the Forestry Commission as a government department".
The Select Committee went on to recommend in paragraph 146:
"Some aspects of the Forestry Commission's management objectives and statutory terms of reference are becoming out of date in the context of present conditions and the way in which forestry practice is evolving in the Forestry Commission itself and elsewhere. The management objectives make no reference to the need for harmony with water usage, and the special importance of woodlands to nature conservation requires greater prominence".
It is the latter point that my amendment seeks to meet

111
and this seemed an appropriate Bill in which to do it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I quite understand that the noble Lord should expect the Forestry Commission to pay proper regard to wildlife. If it did not do so, it would be right for the Government to issue the necessary instructions or to provide for it in legislation, if not necessarily in the form of this amendment. However, the Commission has a well-established policy of nature conservation which it has recently set out in its annual report for 1979–80. It fully recognises the importance of preserving wildlife and managing it effectively where management is necessary but, as all foresters will know, and there are many in this House, there are species which have to be controlled in order to safeguard the plantations or the interests of neighbours and it would be wrong to inhibit that. The Commission maintains close touch with the Nature Conservancy Council and other countryside agencies and has its own qualified wildlife officers within its research and development division to advise its forest managers. It also has some 300 trained field staff concerned with woodland protection and wildlife management, which in itself is a reflection of the Commission's commitment to the preservation of wildlife.
I hope I have said enough to demonstrate that the Commission is acutely conscious of its wildlife responsibilities and that it would be wrong, in so far as its functions involve some degree of control over wildlife, and unnecessary in so far as it already pays every possible attention consistent with its functions to conserve wildlife, to impose upon it a statutory requirement which, particularly in the form of this amendment, would inhibit the proper management of its plantations. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Melchett: The Minister has said enough to illustrate the fear I expressed earlier that there is something in the way of double standards operating here. In a Bill concerned with the conservation and protection of wildlife, we find a number of provisions which ensure that agriculture and forestry are given their proper place with all due consideration being given to those interests. However, in a measure concerned with forestry we are not allowed even the mildest hint that wildlife might be important and that those operating the Forestry Commission should take that factor into account.
The amendment does not do what the Minister suggested; it does not hinder the proper management of forestry but simply says that they should take appropriate measures to conserve wildlife. It does not say they should take inappropriate measures, and inappropriate ones would clearly be those which conflicted with their primary duties for forestry management. It was the mildest form of words one could conceive to implement the Select Committee's recommendation. It seems that the Government are claiming to strike a balance between farming and commercial interests on the one hand and the protection of wildlife on the other but in fact are doing no such thing, and the rejection of an amendment of this kind shows they are not even attempting to strike such a balance.
112
They are ensuring that the whole of the Bill is full of provisions which protect agriculture and forestry but that none of those involved in agriculture and forestry shall pay one jot of attention to the interests of wildlife. It is a pity that, while they are saying they wish to strike a correct balance, the Government are not prepared even to consider amendments which attempt to take them at their word. The hour is late and I appreciate that many noble Lords are anxious to get home, so for the time being I will not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Regulations, orders, notices etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 359 and 360 not moved.]
10.25 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 360A:
Page 21, line 20, at end insert£
("(1A) Any orders under sections 5, 11 and 20 shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In order to save time I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is going to accept this amendment, and if not, why not? I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: No, for the following reason. We have spoken to similar amendments and I think that the Government have to oppose them because we do not want orders under Clauses 5, 11 and 20 of the Bill made if they have to be approved by each House of Parliament. That procedure is reserved for orders such as those which would amend Acts of Parliament. Without wishing to denigrate their importance, I would say that to inflict upon both Houses the necessity of considering one Affirmative Resolution on what would amount to a number of relatively minor matters, especially when parliamentary time is under such pressure, would be unreasonable. I have indicated that the Government will be bringing forward an amendment to make orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and I hope that, with that in mind, my noble friend will be able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry that my noble friend had to say that. We have given very detailed discussion as to what should be included in which schedule in relation to creatures which should or should not be killed. I cannot see why in the future when we put creatures on to a schedule or take them off a schedule the matter should not be discussed in Parliament. It is proposed to have a Negative Resolution, but that is not very satisfactory. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 360B, 360C, 361 and 362 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 363:
Page 21, line 40, at end insert ("or, in the case of an area including sea, adjoins that area.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a

113
minor legal point which I am not sure I fully understand, but I hope that the noble Earl will understand it. The purpose of the amendment is to clear up the Government's view of whether local authorities have territorial waters. As I understand it, the general opinion seems to be that they do not. A special provision has to be made for the magistrates' courts, which were traditionally based on counties, to have jurisdiction over territorial sea. But if the Government were disposed to accept the amendment it would allow local authorities along the shoreline to make representations about reserves at sea; not only marine reserves, which we now hope the Government will include in the Bill in an enabling clause at least, but possibly also bird reserves under Clause 3. I hope that that brief explanation will help the noble Earl to see his way to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Lord rightly said, this is a rather technical point. The Secretary of State will always consider proposals from a local authority in respect of areas of land and water within its boundaries. The proposed amendment seeks to widen the scope of orders without attending to such matters as the extention of the police powers to act in relation to the sea. As it stands, the amendment is defective and I shall have to resist it.
Lord Melchett: How is it defective?
The Earl of Avon: That is an excellent question. It is defective because it would not be reasonable for a local authority to have added powers outside its area; but I shall come back to the noble Lord on this one.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that this is a matter on which we should take up the time of the Committee at this hour. If the noble Earl would be good enough to write to me about it, I should be very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 364:
Page 22, line 2, at end insert—
(""air weapon "means an air rifle, air gun or air pistol not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 to be specially dangerous").
The noble Lord said: Now we come to the armoury. I shall move this amendment just to put on the record a definition of the airgun or air weapon, though I shall readily withdraw it if it is of no use to the noble Earl. It is a pity that we do not have a Select Committee of gunsmiths who could take this lot away and then bring us the answers to what is an automatic weapon, what is an airgun, what is a reloader, and all the rest of it. I am sure that there is considerable expertise on the other side of the Committee. Indeed, I see there the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who will be telling us all about it in a few minutes.
But for my part I shall save time; that is what I am after now. Is this any good, or is it not? Let me
114
remind the noble Earl that earlier he promised to take away the airgun to have a look at it, among the 124 other things that the Government are going to look at. I assume that if they are going to include the airgun in the list of prohibited weapons in any way they will bring forward a definition at the same time. But the noble Earl has mine for what it is worth. If he does not want it, let him say so and I shall withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, threw into the ring the question whether or not his amendment was any good. I would submit to your Lordships that it is not, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be too precipitate in committing the Government to accepting an amendment of this kind, which, to our surprise, he indicated a couple of weeks ago that he would. The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the use of air weapons to those of higher-power muzzle energy of more than 12 foot-pounds, the ownership of which is subject to the holding of a firearms certificate. I think this is both unnecessary and mistaken, because I seem to detect in it a move to restrict the ownership of weapons under the guise of conservation. Secondly, I think it is a mistake to suppose that air weapons of a lower power are not effective in dealing with small pests. I believe they are, and I could produce evidence to support that, but I shall not detain your Lordships on this occasion. I just hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be in too much of a hurry to commit the Government.
The Earl of Avon: As I think I said to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he spoke to this matter earlier, the Government accept the idea behind it and we propose, therefore, to put down a suitable amendment on another occasion. That still holds, and I am having a discussion on it with some people again tomorrow.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That means, then, that I can safely withdraw the amendment, which I beg leave to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 365 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 366 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 367 and 367A.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 366:
Page 22, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert (""automatic weapon" means any weapon falling within the definition in section 5(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment on the principle that we should have a proper definition in the Bill of exactly what is meant by automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. All the Bill says at present is that the terms "automatic weapon" and "semi-automatic weapon" do not include any weapon with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds. That is no way to define either an automatic or a semi-automatic weapon. I think we must have a firm basis from which to start before we can discuss the question of magazine capacity. As the Irishman said, "I would not start from here". It is for this

115
reason that I have tabled this amendment, to set out clearly what is meant by an automatic weapon by reference to Section 5 of the Firearms Act. There is another amendment later on, set down in the name of one of my noble friends, relating to semi-automatic weapons, and I think that if the Government can accept the principle of definitions of this kind, which are purely factual, then we can have a firm base from which to start in discussing the magazine capacity of those weapons. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As I said to my noble friend when he moved a similar amendment on, I think, the first day, we are required to ban the use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition—that is, three in total, with one in the breech—because of our obligations under the European Community directive. The weapons can be permitted to be used under licence against birds, and we intend to allow their use against most pest species; that is, those birds in Schedule 2, Part II. Their use could also be authorised as appropriate on licences issued in respect of other species. However, as I said before, we are confined to this definition by our obligations under the European Community directive, and therefore I cannot help my noble friend.
Lord Swansea: I thank my noble friend for those remarks. Of course, the most important aspect of this is the question of the ·22 semi-automatic rifle. I shall not pursue this at this late hour, but I shall return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 367 and 367A not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 368 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 369.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 368:
Page 22, line 29, leave out from ("partridge") to end of line 31 and insert ("or grouse including ptarmigan, but excluding capercaillie").
The noble Lord said: I invite your Lordships attention to the definition of "game bird" which is said to mean:
"any pheasant, partridge, grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game or, in Scotland, ptarmigan".
I know that those are the words that have been used in previous legislation, but I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the ptarmigan is a grouse and the capercaillie is a grouse, so that to talk about grouse and/or ptarmigan is like talking about Peers of the Realm or Barons. I am proposing that, instead, we should simply say that "game bird" means any pheasant, partridge or grouse, including ptarmigan but excluding capercaillie. This leaves out the old fashioned words "moor game" and "heath game" for red grouse and black grouse; and also leaves out the words: "in Scotland", which are to be deleted, anyway, by the Government Amendment No. 369. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is trying to clarify this particular position. As he says, the definition of "game bird" which appears in the Bill is identical with the one in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 and is taken from the Game Act 1831 which is still in force. I understand that the noble Lord wishes to modernise the wording, but to do this would mean amending the definition in the Game Act at the same time. It would seem to be a pity to have to go back to 1831. As the noble Lord has seen, we have tabled a Government amendment to delete the words "in Scotland" which are confusing. I hope that that little bit of clarity may persuade him not to press me on the remainder of the definition.
Lord Kilbracken: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 369:
Page 22, line 30, leave out (",in Scotland,").
The noble Earl said: This minor amendment seeks to remove the words "in Scotland" from the definition of "game bird". Although the current definition is of long standing, it is unclear to the extent that it can be read to mean that in Scotland there is only one game bird; namely, the ptarmigan. The amendment removes any ambiguity and does not affect the practical position in any way, as the ptarmigan is found only in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Earl what happens if the ptarmigan decides to spread and establish itself in Northern England? Would that be allowed under the Bill or not?
The Earl of Avon: As it is now with all other grouse, yes, it would.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It cannot exist under 2,000 feet.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 370:
Page 22, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The noble Earl said: I have to some degree spoken to this amendment in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. This amendment removes the definition of "livestock". The Government originally put down the amendment as a result of the inclusion of "livestock" in the new subsection and in consequential amendments to the equivalent clause dealing with animals. However, the Committee expressed the view—and the Government accepted it—that wild game should not be protected from natural predation by mammals. The definition is no longer required. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("and exchange") and insert ("exchange and gift").
The noble Lord said: The definition of "sale" is stated at the top of page 23 as including hire, barter

117
and exchange. My amendment would change that to
"hire, barter, exchange and gift".
The omission of the word "gift" would leave a loophole where a sale or exchange had taken place, because it could be claimed that the transaction was a gift. Where a gift had taken place which if it had been a sale would have been an offence, that should be subject to the same penalties. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think that one can call it closing a loophole to stop a genuine gift. If the "gift" is not genuine (for example, money has been paid or another item given in exchange) and can be shown, an offence will have been committed. There is a loophole in the current definition of "sale", in that people can claim to hire out birds and thus get around the sale provisions; this we have closed by the addition of the word "hire" to the definition.
The Government do not consider that omission of "gift" leaves a loophole. We would not want to prohibit the giving of genuine gifts which would, quite unnecessarily in our view, increase bureaucracy, by adding to the licensing workload. If the so-called gift is not genuine, the Bill as drafted makes it an offence. It would of course have to be shown that an offence had been committed, but that is no more than the normal requirement. To add the word "gift" in this definition is going a little bit too far. I hope that, with due consideration, the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Kilbracken: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Earl this question. I do not want to press the amendment, of course; but in those cases where it is illegal to sell a bird or a bird's egg, do I understand him to say that it would not be an offence under those circumstances to give that bird or that egg to another person and that it is only when the sale, hire or barter takes place that an offence is created?
The Earl of Avon: The answer to that is that, if a bird or any part thereof is legally in possession, then it will be a legal gift. Does that make sense?
Lord Kilbracken: I am not talking about where it is in legal possession; I am talking about where it is illegal, and where the sale of it is a separate offence. In those cases where the sale is an additional offence would it still be an offence when it is given to the person instead of being sold to him?
The Earl of Avon: I would certainly think so. If I am wrong, I shall come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Kilbracken: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard Viscount Massereene and Ferrard moved Amendment No. 372:
Page 23, line 3, at end insert—
(""semi-automatic" means any firearm which uses part of the recoil energy or the gas pressure generated on firing to operate the action in a self-loading mode. In each instance a separate pressure on the trigger is required for subsequent missiles to be discharged").
The noble Viscount said: Since the definition of semi-automatic weapons in Clause 25, line 20, is inadequate, I have put down this amendment. Having heard what the Minister said to my noble friend Lord Swansea, I do not suppose the Government will accept it. Having said that, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: We considered when drafting this Bill inclusion of, as it happens, an identical definition of the term semi-automatic weapon, but were advised that it was unnecessary as it does nothing since it merely sets out the ordinary meaning of the expression semi-automatic. So far as I am aware, there is no other meaning which might be confused with the ordinary meaning. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 373:
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("remove the plant with its roots") and insert ("wholly remove the plant from the land on which").
The noble Baroness said: I should like the Committee to turn their attention from weapons to algae and fungi. In the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 Clause 15(2) said:
"Any fungus or alga shall not be treated as a plant for the purposes of this Act unless it is a composite of fungus and alga in the form of lichen".
That has been dropped from this Bill, so that as a result algae and fungi are now included; but the definition of "uproot" which appeared in the 1975 Act appears almost exactly the same in this Bill. As algae and fungi are now included and do not have roots and, in many cases, one could not use the phrase, "dig up", about taking them, we believe that the definition given in Clause 25 could be improved by using the words in the amendment, so that it would read:
"wholly remove the plant from the land on which it is growing".
I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I take the noble Baroness's point. I am not quite sure that one can uproot something which has no roots, but I will certainly look into her suggestion.
Baroness David: Thank you. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 374:
Page 23, line 14, leave out ("ordinarily").
The noble Lord said: The definition of a wild bird is stated to be:
"any bird which is of a kind which is ordinarily resident in or is a visitor to Great Britain in a wild state".
I am proposing to leave out the word "ordinarily", and I hope the Government will see the validity of this suggestion. All kinds of birds are either resident in, or visitors to, Great Britain, or both; and this definition means that a bird which is a visitor to Britain is covered by the definition, even though it visits Britain only once in 10 years. But if it is in the class of birds that is

119
resident in Great Britain it has to be "ordinarily" resident, and if not "ordinarily resident" it is not covered by the definition.
Practically all birds that are resident in this country are ordinarily resident here, but of course there are those which are extraordinarily resident here. If we take a species such as, for instance, the Dartford warbler, it is resident in this country but is ordinarily resident in France or on the Continent. It is also resident in this country , but is very rare and not often seen. It seems to me that the definition of "wild bird" should include those residents which are only occasionally seen here and are ordinarily resident somewhere else. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I was rather hoping that this would be put down, for income tax purposes, as I gather that "ordinarily" means out of the country for more than one year. However, I gather there is another reason. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has expressed concern that the definition of "wild bird" as drafted might exclude a species such as the Dartford warbler, which is ordinarily resident on the Continent. However, this does not prevent its being ordinarily resident in Great Britain as well. In any case where there might be doubt, the species would be protected as a visitor.
The loss of the word "ordinarily" would have a considerable effect on the Bill. It has been included so as to exclude from protection escapees of nonnative, primarily exotic species such as the ring-necked paraqueet, so as to chime in with the new introduction of non-native species, which your Lordships debated last Monday. These species, in the absence of the word "ordinarily", receive protection as residents, as they do not visit the country in the wild state. So for that rather dubious reason the word, "ordinarily", is included.
Lord Kilbracken: However dubious it may be, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 25, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: May I very briefly raise a point about the definition of "poultry" in Clause 25? The definition reads that "poultry" means domestic fowls and, among other things, domestic ducks. I just wondered whether the noble Earl could at some point, not now, write to me and give me some assurance that there is no possibility of that definition being interpreted in the court so as to include, for example, normally wild species of duck which were kept in captivity and bred there, or a normally wild British bird which was kept in captivity and bred there, because they were thereby felt to be domestic—whether domestic duck, domestic fowl or what have you. It is simply that if the court did interpret the word "poultry" in that way, as a result of the definition in the clause, it would provide a major loophole in the provisions of the Bill. I hope that it does not. The noble Earl may be able to reassure me straight away or, if not, in due course.
Lord Kilbracken: I was worried about the same point. What is confusing is that we do not know how many of these nouns are qualified by the adjective "domestic". Is it all of them or does it qualify only the word "fowls", because pigeons and quails, without the qualification "domestic", are also wild birds within the meaning of the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I take both noble Lords' points. I am virtually certain that they have no need to worry, but I will certainly check on it and let them know.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

  PNEUMOCONIOSIS: CLAIMANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS: CLAIMANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL
  ASBESTOS: SAFE LIMIT OF EXPOSURE
  ASBESTOS: SAFE LIMIT OF EXPOSURE
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES: INCORRECT HANDLING OF CLAIMS
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES: INCORRECT HANDLING OF CLAIMS
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES: PATIENTS' HISTORIES
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES: PATIENTS' HISTORIES
  URBAN AND RURAL IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN: EMPLOYED PERSONS
  URBAN AND RURAL IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN: EMPLOYED PERSONS
  URBAN AND RURAL IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN: PENSIONS AND REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  URBAN AND RURAL IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN: PENSIONS AND REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: JOBS PROMOTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND: JOBS PROMOTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND: JOB FINANCE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: JOB FINANCE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: NUMBER OF JOBS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: NUMBER OF JOBS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: JOB CATEGORIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: JOB CATEGORIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND CIVIL SERVICE: SUPERANNUATION BRANCH STAFFING
  NORTHERN IRELAND CIVIL SERVICE: SUPERANNUATION BRANCH STAFFING
  ROAD VERGES: OWNERSHIP
  ROAD VERGES: OWNERSHIP
  BERMUDA, BAHAMAS, JAMAICA, ST. KITTS-NEVIS, ANTIGUA: AID
  BERMUDA, BAHAMAS, JAMAICA, ST. KITTS-NEVIS, ANTIGUA: AID
  THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE
  THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE
  VEHICLE AND ENVIRONMENT: INQUIRY REPORT
  VEHICLE AND ENVIRONMENT: INQUIRY REPORT