Sitting of 2 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT) PIER BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Union Ballots
    Mr. Butcherasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to meet the president of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers to discuss the provision of money for ballots of its membership.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I have no plans for such a meeting, although I am always ready to meet trade union leaders.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that this is one aspect of public expenditure available to trade unions that would assist them in providing a better and more informed service for their members?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I hope very much that trade unions and their leaders will do all that they can to encourage the holding of secret ballots, if necessary by post, recognising that the Government will pay the cost of those ballots while not wishing to interfere in the manner in which trade unions organise their affairs.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: The Secretary of State must be aware that this proposal was put to the national committee of the AUEW, representing the rank and file in the industry, by the union's executive. The national committee took a democratic decision and rejected the proposal out of hand. Is this not an example of democracy working?
    Mr. Prior: I am also aware that many members of the executive, including the leadership, were keen to take part in the scheme. I regret that they did not do so. I am, however, prepared to accept the view that was taken and I make no further comment about it.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it would have been better if the Civil Service unions had taken advantage of the ballot procedure? Since more than half of the members of the Civil Service are not in favour of striking, the dispute might then have been settled a long time ago.
    Mr. Prior: There is a great deal to be said for secret ballots. That is why the Government introduced the
    760
    measure and why it received a good deal of support from Opposition Members. I should like to see it used far more than at present.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State concede that the AUEW elects all its officers by secret ballot and does not require Government money for this purpose? Is not the real reason why the AUEW, along with other unions, will not accept money from this Government the fact that they are an anti-trade union Government?
    Mr. Prior: I do not accept the latter point. Last year, ballots cost the AUEW about £293,000. I should have thought that the union would wish to take part in the scheme. If it prefers to spend its own money, who I am to complain?

    Legally Enforceable Agreements
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the encouragement of legally enforceable agreements in industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): Legally enforceable agreements are one of the issues discussed in our Green Paper on trade union immunities. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the general secretary of the TUC, but we are, of course, ready to meet him at any time to discuss this or any of the issues discussed in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will my hon. and learned Friend not agree that while trade union leadership is always ready to criticise management for failing to consult, it is often reluctant to accept its responsibilities for ensuring that freely negotiated agreements are fully observed?
    Mr. Waddington: This is perhaps not the most appropriate moment to apportion blame. All hon. Members, I believe, will agree that great benefits would accrue to management and employees if collective agreements were enforceable. Management would be able to plan with some knowledge of wage costs over a long period and employees would benefit from the increased productivity that would result.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister not accept that this provision was contained in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 of a previous Conservative Government? The only effect was that trade unions stated on the bottom of every piece of headed notepaper "This communication is not legally enforceable." In other words, this simplistic idea is completely impracticable.
    Mr. Waddington: Under the 1971 Act, it was stated that there was a presumption that a collective agreement would be enforceable unless the contrary was stated. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that few were prepared to accept legal enforceability. That does not mean that we should not now bend all our efforts towards persuading people to accept legal enforceability or that we should not investigate various methods by which this can be brought about.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important type of agreement that we need to negotiate is the no-strike

    761
    agreement, both in the public and the private sector? Will his Department open discussions with the TUC to explore formulae to incorporate no-strike agreements?
    Mr. Waddington: That matter clearly goes beyond this question, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of its importance. Again, it is one of the many matters touched upon in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that measures of this kind have been tried and talked about for a long time in this country but that they are doomed to failure from the start because the right to withdraw labour is the prerogative of a free man and distinguishes him from the serf?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said nothing that could have conveyed the impression that I wished to deny the right to withdraw one's labour. I was careful to point out that we should encourage people to accept responsibility for their own actions and agree on legal enforceability.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that what we really need, whether legally enforceable or not, is a readiness on the part of both employers and workers to accept and abide by collective agreements honourably entered into? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if the Government as employers had done that with the Civil Service, instead of unilaterally breaching their agreement, there would be no dispute with the Civil Service?
    Mr. Waddington: Of course, the Civil Service agreements are collective agreements within the meaning of the 1974 Act and are therefore not enforceable. Perhaps the trade unions concerned will draw one or two lessons from that. On the merits of the matter, notice was given by the Government in August 1980 that cash limits would be the main determinant of the Civil Service settlement this year, and formal action to suspend the pay agreement was taken in October.

    Trade Union Immunities
    Mr. Bob Dunnasked the Secretary of State for Employment if the responses he has so far received following the publication of the Green Paper on trade union immunities indicate that the set period of consultation is adequate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has now received in reply to the Green Paper on trade union immunities.
    Mr. Prior: So far we have received representations on the Green Paper from over 80 organisations and individuals. The consultative period ends on 30 June, and we are still awaiting comments from many of the major organisations in industry. I am satisfied that the period of nearly six months set aside for consultations is adequate and that most of those who wish to comment will be able to do so in the time allowed.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things? First, will he reassure the House that the period of consultation is genuine? Secondly, before reaching a decision about the advisability of further legislation, will he take into account the strong feeling that undoubtedly exists about the closed shop?
    Mr. Prior: The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is "Yes, Sir". I am particularly aware of the second matter.
    Mr. Renton: To what extent have the representations already received covered the apparent misuse of trade union funds, notably political funds used to buy swollen numbers of votes at Labour Party conferences, and general funds used to finance the building of the new Labour Party headquarters? Does my right hon. Friend believe that ordinary trade unionists would benefit from a more open, public and quick audit of trade union accounts?
    Mr. Prior: These matters are not strictly relevant to the subject of the Green Paper. They are more relevant to the activities of the certification officer, as set out in the 1974 Act introduced by the Labour Government. I suggest that individual trade unionists should make certain that the funds of their trade unions are used for the proper purpose, and act accordingly.
    Mr. Dixon: Does the right Gentleman realise that last year, although 29 million days were lost through strike action, 674 million days were lost through unemployment? Is it not time that he started doing the job for which he is paid, and created employment instead of trying to curb the unions?
    Mr. Prior: There is no question of trying to blame working people alone for the problems facing the Government and the country. We all have to fight together for higher and better employment. Better industrial relations could do more to improve the position of this country than almost any other single factor.
    Mr. Madel: As some major organisations are involved in intensive discussions with trade unions on manning levels and training, may not more time be necessary for consultation to get the right result in the end?
    Mr. Prior: It is vital to get the right result in the end, and that is why we published a consultative Green Paper. From that will come valuable suggestions which will either be taken up in the form of legislation, or will need further work.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State consider the question of the legally enforced immunity of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who ordered dining rooms A and C for the semi-National Front Democratic Association yesterday in the House, and then had his name blanked out on the circular? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that, too?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's question is about as relevant as most of his questions.
    Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman leave it till after Question Time?
    Mr. Renton: It is relevant, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Renton: Thank you, Sir. May I raise on a point or order the fact that obviously the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not know and has not sought to know that I did not book any dining rooms in the House of Commons yesterday, and that, when to sponsor——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that makes the position clear.

    Job Release Scheme
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total number of those taking advantage of the job release scheme.
    Mr. Waddington: At 28 April 1981, 58,251 people in Great Britain were in receipt of allowances under the job release scheme.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is not that a ludicrously low number? If the scheme were altered to bring the qualifying age for men down to 60 and for women to 55, would it not cost only £165 million in 1982–83? Would it not be better if the Secretary of State, instead of wringing his hands to the people's march for jobs, like some latter-day Chamberlain, got down to doing something real about unemployment, and amended the job release scheme in the way suggested?
    Mr. Waddington: There has been a massive increase in the youth opportunities programme this year, which has made it impossible to extend job release in 1981–82. I do not deny that this is a good scheme. One would like it to be extended. However, there would be a substantial net cost, and I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. The existing scheme costs £130 million gross and £75 million net. The hon. Gentleman is referring to 1981–82, but not to the first full year. In the year 1982–83, the gross cost would be £600 million and the net cost £300 million. It is a question of resources.
    Mr. John Grant rose——
    Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that the Minister should alter figures that were given to me in a written answer on Friday 8 May——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We usually leave points of order until after Question Time. Ministers, like other hon. Members, always seem to find the appropriate figures.
    Mr. Grant: Will not Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State before he is reshuffled, have another look at this scheme with a view—at the very least—to restoring the cuts that have been made in it, bearing in mind the fact that, despite the figures given, it is extremely cost-effective and could do much to relieve unemployment? Would that not be better than waiting for the figure of 3 million unemployed to rise, as the Secretary of State has now confirmed is likely?
    Mr. Waddington: First, I was in error. In fairness to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), I must point out that the first full year would be 1983–84. My figures are correct for that, but not for the year 1982–83. The figures then would be £600 million and £300 million. So the point I made is still a good one. [Laughter] I can only repeat that the Government agree that the scheme is a good one. There would be many advantages in extending it. However, it is another example of having to choose priorities. In view of the availability of resources it is not possible to grant the extension asked for by the hon. Member in this year.

    Unemployment (Northern Region)
    Mr. Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects unemployment in the Northern region to fall.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): A substantial fall in unemployment in the Northern region, as elsewhere in the country, depends largely upon an upturn in world trade. The Government's policies are aimed at creating the economic conditions in which firms can take advantage of such an upturn and create the new jobs which are so much needed.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that 200,000 people in the Northern region are unemployed and that they are outraged at the Secretary of State disclaiming responsibility for unemployment? Is he further aware that nowhere in the developed world has unemployment increased so steeply? Does he accept that, if the Government were to invest now in British Rail, British Telecom and British Gas, not only would there be a negligible effect on the inflation rate but jobs would be created directly in Shildon and Newton Aycliffe in my constituency?
    Mr. Morrison: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the North-East twice in the last two months. My right hon. Friend and I are more than aware of the difficult position in the North-East. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, thanks to the Government's programmes, 21,861 people are benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. Without that scheme they would be redundant.
    Sir William Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of Government policies, last year three times as many factories were opened in the Northern region's trading estates as were closed? Does he accept that, if Opposition Members looked at hard facts, they would discover, as I have, that as many jobs were created on the trading estates in the last 12 months as were lost? Is he aware that in addition many new inquiries have been made? Surely we need a bit of optimism, not pessimism.
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude which I have discovered in the North-East is optimistic. I have discovered optimism amongst those who want to go out, make something and create jobs. Optimism is there. I am sure that Opposition Members do not want to rock their supporters. As my hon. Friend says, jobs come not out of mid-air but from new orders. Many new orders are going to firms in the North-East.
    Mr. David Watkins: Is the Minister aware that at least one firm in the Consett area of the North-East is refusing to employ anyone except ex-BSC workers because it does not receive extra subsidies for employing workers who are not former steel workers? How can such discrimination be justified, especially since in my constituency, which is heavily hit by steel closures, only half of the total unemployed are ex-BSC workers? How can that discrimination be justified? Will the Minister investigate?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the firm to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he gets in touch with me I shall examine the position.

    Closed Shop (Compensation)
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that employees dismissed under closed shop agreements are adequately compensated under the Employment Act 1980.
    Mr. Prior: As yet there have been no reported industrial tribunal decisions on cases of unfair dismissal arising under the Employment Act's closed shop provisions. We are keeping the operation of the Act under close review and we shall not hesitate to make further changes in the law, if they are shown to be necessary.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling in the country that simply to increase industrial compensation is far from satisfactory and that the only real answer is reinstatement of employment?
    Mr. Prior: I am aware of the strong feelings, particularly about the actions of Sandwell and Walsall council, and the people dismissed under such circumstances. An industrial tribunal has the right to demand reinstatement. However, it has never been part of our tradition or law that employers should be forced to take back people whom they do not wish to employ. That is why there is a third part to industrial tribunal compensation which allows additional compensation in such cases.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State comment about the many hundreds of workers who every year lose their jobs because of their trade union activities? Will he legislate along those lines?
    Mr. Prior: Such people can also go to industrial tribunals.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that it is possible to sustain the proposition that the outlawing of the closed shop would serve no purpose and at the same time feel that the way in which Labour-controlled local authorities are using tenders as a means of forcing the extension of the closed shop without any regard to the views of those involved and affected is something with which the Government must deal?
    Mr. Prior: I agree that there is abuse. It is covered by the discussions on the Green Paper. It might also—I cannot go further than this—be a breach of the Competition Act. It is a matter that has to be dealt with.
    Mr. Skinner: Have not the Minister and the Government a cheek to talk about a few people who have been dismissed under closed shop agreements when in the last 12 months the Government have sacked 1 million workers through their economic policies? Is he aware that that has resulted in more than 2½ million people being out of work and the massive people's march which took place in the last month? Why is the Secretary of State not encouraging the Prime Minister to hold an industrial tribunal for the sacked Navy Minister?
    Mr. Prior: Most hon. Members think that the sacking, at a time of high unemployment, of tea ladies and dinner ladies and people dismissed under such circumstances as those prevailing at Sandwell and Walsall, simply because they refused to join a trade union, is utterly wrong and should be condemned.

    Laurence Scott Electromotors Ltd.
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will take steps to assist workers who lose their jobs as a result of the proposed plant closure of Laurence Scott Electromotors Ltd., Openshaw, Manchester.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The employment and training services of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to those who wish to take advantage of them. The Commission will make every effort within the limit of its resources to assist those affected to find alternative opportunities for work or training.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware of the shabby treatment being doled out by the company which recently took over Laurence Scott? Is he aware that only months ago that firm announced that the jobs of 650 workers would be protected? Is he further aware that the factory has been established for 100 years? Does he accept that we are now witnessing the classic case of a firm being smashed to the wall by asset-stripping? Is the Minister prepared to conduct an immediate inquiry since unemployment in Manchester is running at 15·5 per cent?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not prepared to conduct an inquiry. It is not Government policy to intervene in such matters.
    Mr. Charles Morris: Will the Minister confirm the statement made to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and to Paul Foot of the Daily Mirror that the directors of the company made the decision to close the plant on 10 February without any consultation with the trade unions or the work force? Does the Minister accept that such appalling behaviour is contrary to the code of practice in the Employment Protection Act?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I shall not confirm that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. I remind him that payments are made to the employees, not to the employers. My Department has written to the company about this matter.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that employees who have been with the firm for less than 12 years will lose not only their jobs but their redundancy money? Since many are parents of young children and under great stress, will the Minister undertake to examine that aspect?
    Mr. Morrison: If there is anything that we can do under existing legislation we shall consider the matter further. The hon. Gentleman is bringing to my attention a matter of which I was unaware.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure available for the number of people unemployed; what percentage this represents of the working population; and if he will give an age and sex breakdown of this figure in the Official Report.
    Mr. Prior: At 14 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,558,405, which represents an unemployment rate of 10·6 per cent.
    I shall ensure that the latest age and sex breakdown of the unemployment figure is printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that the month-by-month increase in the registered unemployed and the devastation caused to such industrial areas as the West Midlands mean that the total number of registered jobless could rise to 3 million in the near future? Is the Secretary of State aware that the enthusiastic reception given to those who marched from Liverpool to London in protest against unemployment shows only too clearly that the British public will, at the first opportunity, reject a Government who have brought back to Britain mass unemployment, with all the humiliation and misery associated with such large-scale joblessness?
    Mr. Prior: We had better wait for a general election before accepting the hon. Gentleman's prophecy. Unemployment did not start in 1979. If there were some simple answer to the problem of unemployment, presumably the Labour Government would have found it. Britain is facing problems that the remainder of the world is also facing. Yet for the past 20 years we have failed to face up to them.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not the Secretary of State accept that, because of our oil resources, Britain is in a different position from other industrialised countries? Does not every analysis show that the 1·3 million that the Government have added to the dole queue are mainly the result of the Government's policies? Does not he accept that unless the Government decide soon to devote much of the financial resources gained from oil to regenerate industry, not only will there be unemployment of 3 million, but 3½ million in the near future?
    Mr. Prior: I do not believe that the availability of oil in any way places Britain in a better employment position than it would otherwise be. We must export more goods. Through better production we must prevent the importation of more manufactured goods. Those factors show how uncompetitive Britain has become during the past 20 years and the need to tighten up considerably in industry if we are to compete. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the problems have been coming to Britain for a long time. The position has become worse during the past 20 years. That is one reason why our recession is deeper than that of a number of other countries.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are to achieve the increased employment that we all desire it will be sensible for the Opposition Front and Back Benches to agree to lower the general rate of pay increases, which would be better than continuing even at 7 per cent: next year?
    Mr. Prior: As we all know, pay is an important part of trying to keep down our costs and improve our competitive position. The Labour Government found that as much as this Government are finding that. If some people pay themselves more it will create unemployment in other places. That is the inevitable and regrettable consequence.
    Mr. Bagier: Was the Secretary of State serious when he said that oil did not affect the position? Is he saying that
    768
    without oil we would be better off? Does not he agree that he should use Government resources to ensure that industries such as the foundry and glass industries, and many others, do not continue to pay far more for their energy than their competitors pay in Europe? Is not that one aspect in which the Government could intervene, and should not they do so now?
    Mr. Prior: Without oil we would be in an even worse position. There is no doubt about that. I do not think that Opposition Members can take any credit from that position. Energy costs are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Evidence shows that our oil prices have been reasonably competitive with the remainder of Europe.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that unemployment will fall only if British industry and commerce provide the goods and services that the British public want to buy? It is regrettable that at present they often prefer foreign goods.
    Mr. Prior: All too often the British public prefer to buy other people's goods rather than those which they produce themselves. Why on earth they should expect other people to buy their goods when they are not prepared to buy them themselves is a mystery to me.
    Mr. Varley: As unemployment has reached a catastrophic level and, tragically, will become even worse on the basis of present policies, will the Secretary of State assure the House that during the forthcoming full-scale Cabinet debate on economic policy—which was foreshadowed in today's newspapers—he will demand, as the Minister principally responsible, immediate measures not only to arrest and reverse that trend but to stop such a waste of human resources? Does he agree that the only way to get out of the current position is to ensure that the Governments can influence the level of employment and output? Public spending and public works must be at the heart of that.
    Mr. Prior: There are many factors, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, that influence the level of unmployment in Britain. One of the most important of those is the level of world trade. There is little that the Government can do about that. On the question of consultation with my colleagues, I am sure that he will find that the Cabinet is in full agreement about its policy:
    Following is the information:
    At 9 April, the latest date for which the quarterly age analysis is available, the number of people in the Unfired Kingdom unemployed by age and sex was as follows:

    Age Group

    Males

    Females

    All

    Under 18

    87,753

    68,118

    155,871

    18–19

    148,452

    104,374

    252,826

    20–24

    328,720

    179,744

    508,463

    25–34

    421,742

    158,402

    580,144

    35–44

    265,718

    76,005

    341,723

    45–54

    232,248

    75,744

    307,992

    55–59

    138,419

    41,193

    179,612

    60 and over

    196,705

    1,877

    198,582

    All ages

    1,819,757

    705,457

    2,525,214

    Work Experience Programme
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average delay in reimbursing those firms participating in the work experience programme for their outlay of the standard remuneration.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: In May 1981 the average delay in reimbursing firms participating in the youth opportunities programme was between three and four weeks. Steps are being taken to speed reimbursement of sponsoring firms.
    Mr. Thorne: Because the period in some parts of the country can be as long as three months, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider some form of bankers order for the firms participating in such a scheme so that payments are not held up by a shortage of civil servants?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been a significant increase in the number of places in the youth opportunities programme. Last year the planned number was 250,000 and the outturn was 360,000. This year, it is 450,000. More staff have now been allocated and I hope that the position to which he referred will not occur again.
    Mr. Foster: While the Minister is considering quicker reimbursement for companies for the work experience aspect of the youth opportunities programme, will he bear in mind that local education authorities are in exactly the same position?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

    Productivity
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Employment when last he met the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss productivity.
    Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend has not had a recent meeting with the president of the CBI to deal with this specific topic, but productivity is regularly discussed at meetings of the National Economic Development Council of which both the president of the CBI and my right hon. Friend are members.
    Mr. Eggar: Does not my hon. and learned Friend accept that the recent increases in productivity in British Steel and British Leyland show that significant increases can be achieved in the public as well as the private sector? Is not an increase in productivity the only hope for sustained economic recovery?
    Mr. Waddington: Yes, indeed. We can all take cheer from the fact that, even at this time of economic difficulties, there have been some most important developments in British Steel and British Leyland in the areas of restrictive practices and increased productivity.
    Mr. Dormand: What would the Secretary of State say to the president of the CBI about DJB Engineering Limited in my constituency, which holds three recent export awards and is recognised as a major success story in the Northern region? Is he aware that that company has decided to expand in the United States, but that although it is selling all its products it is, nevertheless, experiencing considerable difficulties? Is he aware that that company has excellent management and a dedicated and cooperative work force? Will he consult not only the CBI but
    770
    his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to decide what can be done about that issue? Is not that a classic case of the utter failure of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is doing a service by highlighting that company's difficulties. However, it is not easy to relate those difficulties to the question and he will not expect me to answer his supplementary question now. I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.

    European Community (Youth Service Scheme)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place in the European Council of Ministers on the proposals for a European youth service scheme.
    Mr. Prior: None, Sir, although the European Parliament has shown its concern to encourage exchanges of young people. The Government fully support the Community's programme of young worker exchanges.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to give any thought to the form that such service should take? Does he see it as an extension of the young workers' exchange scheme or does he visualise an involvement in certain social projects within the Community?
    Mr. Prior: I think that it is more likely to be an extension of the exchange scheme than anything else. There is not much money available for such a scheme at present. We have to consider our contribution and our returns from the Community much more in terms of what can be done for young people within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What urgent action can the right hon. Gentleman take to halt the shortfall in apprenticeships and apprenticeship redundancies? Is not it likely that there will be an alarming collapse in provision from about 80,000 to 60,000 this year? Does he agree that only the dole waits for one in two school leavers this coming autumn?
    Mr. Prior: That is rather a wider question. Yes, I am worried about the probable failure to take up apprenticeships this September. As the House will know, the Manpower Services Commission has put proposals to the Government and these are now being considered.

    Youth Provision (Peterborough)
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the chairman of the Peterborough youth opportunities council to discuss provision under the Manpower Services Commission for youth in Peterborough.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, I shall, at his invitation, be speaking to the Peterborough youth opportunities council on the 18th of this month. I shall listen carefully to what it has to tell me.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will be welcome in Peterborough. When he is there, will he take the opportunity to get briefed on the Phoenix farm project under the youth opportunities programme, which is being

    771
    seriously hampered—income is being lost to the scheme—because of the bureaucratic procedures and inflexibility of the Manpower Services Commission?
    Mr. Morrison: I know of the valuable contribution that the Phoenix training workshop farm has made to the YOP. I appreciate the problems that it has had. I have asked the Commission to consider the issue again and to be as flexible as possible in its approach to the problem.

    European Community (Unemployment)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with his European counterparts the possibility of a special Council of Ministers meeting on unemployment in the Community.
    Mr. Waddington: Unemployment was one of the major issues discussed at the meeting of the European Council in Maastricht on 23–24 March, and also at an informal meeting of Community Employment Ministers on 6–7 April. I expect the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, Labour and Social Affairs, to have an opportunity to consider a Commission paper on the problems of unemployment.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the shocking total of 8 million unemployed in the Community, will he undertake to examine the possibility of joint stimulatory action in the member States to try to reduce unemployment as soon as possible?
    Mr. Waddington: I have no doubt that this is one of the matters that will be discussed during coming meetings and especially when the Commission's paper is discussed.
    Mr. John Grant: Did the British Government's representative acknowledge at the meeting of the Council of Ministers to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred that unemployment in Britain during the past 12 months has risen at a faster rate than in any country in the developed world? If so, will the Minister tell us why that has happened?
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure that all those present discussed the problems that are being faced by their respective countries as a result of the world recession. I have no doubt that our Minister made it plain that for many years, largely because of our own folly, we have allowed ourselves to become less and less competitive.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an important part of the Community's unemployment is in Stoke-on-Trent, where the rate has doubled during the past year? Am I now to tell those people that the Government's response to the charge of creating unemployment is that they are not guilty due to diminished responsibility?
    Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the Government took office they inherited unemployment of 1½ million. He knows that the trend was a rising one. He knew that the deep-seated ills of the British economy would not be removed or cured in a short time.

    European Community (Youth Unemployment)
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance has been forthcoming from
    772
    the European Community to help training opportunites for the young unemployed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1973.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Specific assistance for schemes of training, retraining and resettlement for young people under 25 years of age who are unemployed or seeking employment has been available under the European social fund since August 1975, rising from £2·2 million in that year to £71·9 million in 1980. The total assistance allocated from the fund in this period was £202·7 million.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has been a substantial net beneficiary of the European social fund and that this fact is overlooked, as are so many, by those who seek to oppose the Community?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, I do. Last year Britain was allocated £71·9 million, which was 30 per cent. of the budget available, compared with our contribution of 21 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Needhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Sultan of Brunei.
    Mr. Needham: Has my right hon. Friend fad an opportunity today of reading the London Labour Briefing of yesterday, a leading light of which, I believe, is Mr. Kenneth Livingstone? The chairman of the Lambeth community affairs council said in it, about the Brixton riots, that the Metropolitan Police were an intimidatory army of occupation and that on some occasions insurrectionary methods were necessary. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such articles will do anything to help the relationship between the police and the immigrant communities?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the publication to which my hon. Friend refers. Such language and attitudes are totally irresponsible and dangerous and are tantamount to encouraging anarchy. I hope that they will be rejected by most Labour Members. I am sure that they are repugnant to most people in Britain. Fortunately, responsibility for the Metropolitan Police lies with the Home Secretary and it will stay there.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady take the first opportunity on the House meeting after the recess to tell us what are her latest views about the so-called upturn in the economy, which she has sometimes prophesied? Will she tell us when she last made this prophecy and say how she squares the appalling unemployment figures published a few days ago and the figures about continuing falls in production with her own prophecies about an upturn? When is the upturn going to take place? When will the unemployment figures begin to fall?
    The Prime Minister: I think that most of the recent forecasts agree about two things—first, that the level of inflation will continue to fall and, secondly, that the recession has just about reached bottom——
    Mr. Skinner: Again?
    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that Labour Members would find that encouraging. Of course, forecasts do not wholly agree about when the expansion will come for the simple reason that when the expansion comes depends on how far we take advantage of the opportunities that are available. Much depends on how far wage increases go hand in hand with productivity increases and, therefore, what proportion of orders we get on the home market and the export market.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady be more specific in translating her statement about the turn-round which is about to happen—I forget the exact term that she used—into some effect on the unemployment figures? Does she agree with the extraordinary statement made by the Secretary of State for Employment to the representatives of the People's March for Jobs, when the right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that unemployment was nothing to do with him and his Government? How can she make that accord with the fact that unemployment has been going up more severely in this country than in any other industrial country?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman made such a point of comparing unemployment and jobs in this country with those in Europe, may I point out to him that in this country a higher proportion of the population are in jobs, in work, than in any other country in Europe save Denmark?
    Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Government have done even less than previous Governments to publicise information about available DHSS benefits? Would she consider the comparative villainies between people trying to claim benefits to which they are not entitled which costs the country £40 million, and withholding sufficient information for people to claim benefits to which they are entitled, which saves the country £500 million
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise in any way. This Government are operating the benefits which are available to ordinary people in the same way as previous Governments. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if people wrongly claim benefits to which they are not entitled that reduces the amount of money available for people who are really in need.
    Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, during the last five years, the unions had not demanded, and employers had not conceded, increases in manufacturing earnings, which have doubled in five years while production has declined, many more people would be at work today? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the Opposition's policies were carried out they would inexorably lead not only to rip-roaring inflation but to even greater unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. In this country over the last five years pay has doubled, whereas output has slightly fallen. That is totally different from the position with many of our competitors.
    774
    Pay in those countries has gone up hand in hand with productivity. Consequently, they have the jobs and we have a larger proportion of the unemployment.
    Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House at what period during the remainder of this Parliament unemployment will fall to the level that she inherited?
    The Prime Minister: The future course of unemployment will depend upon the advantage which is taken of the opportunities available. A very important matter is the level of pay in relation to the level of output. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head but it is because he tried to run away from the realities that the decline in industrial production was so sharp.
    Sir, Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When my right hon. Friend, meets his Highness the Sultan of Brunei later today, will she give him an assurance about the future of the battalion of Gurkhas after final independence in 1983?
    Mr. Skinner: That is a handy diversion.
    The Prime Minister: That battalion is an excellent part of our defence forces. I shall, of course, discuss that matter with the Sultan.
    Dr. Summerskill: During her day, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that when she last visited Halifax it was during the general election campaign to try to persuade people to vote Conservative? Will she now pay another visit and explain to the people of Halifax why, under her Government's policies, unemployment has risen by 175 per cent. and the whole manufacturing base of the town is being gradually eroded?
    The Prime Minister: I have been trying to give an explanation to the House. One of the reasons is that in the past five years we have continually paid ourselves more for doing the same amount of work. If prices go up, the orders go elsewhere.
    Mr. Dickens: Notwithstanding the way in which they were released, will the Prime Minister find time today, or on some subsequent day, to consider whether this country could give political asylum to a handful of former Pakistani Members of Parliament who are stranded in Damascus, Syria, seeking to come to this country?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend must remember, many people have been waiting to come into this country for a long time.
    Mr. Stoddart: Does the right hon. Lady recall describing the level of youth unemployment as tragic? Does she realise that she could do something about it by persuading her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that he should alter the job release scheme to bring down the age limit to 60 for men and 55 for women, since that is the most cost effective way of providing jobs for young people?
    The Prime Minister: Anxious as I am, and anxious as the hon. Gentleman is, to reduce the level of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, that suggestion would not be at a low cost. It would be extremely expensive because of the amount of social security benefits which would have to be paid to those whose jobs are released, particularly if the age limit were brought down to 60 for men and 55 for women. Instead, my right hon. Friend is trying to work towards a scheme

    775
    under which young people will be in full-time education, in jobs or in training, so that unemployment is not an option.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise today that, much as we all deplore the appalling increase in the rate of unemployment, that is due, no more and no less, to self-inflicted wounds under successive Governments? Does she agree that the answer does not lie in throwing money at the problem for the simple reason that we do not have that money in the first place? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the only answer—and there is an increasing acknowledgment of this—lies in every working man making himself more productive and more competitive to help his unemployed colleagues?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The answer to unemployment lies in people giving good value either for products or services—such good value that the British housewife will buy those products or services in preference to foreign goods.
    Mr. Maclennan: In at least four previous answers to questions on unemployment the Prime Minister has referred to the level of incomes. Does she believe that her hectoring on that subject is any substitute for a properly worked-out incomes policy?
    The Prime Minister: It has been an incomes policy that has led to people demanding more pay regardless of extra productivity.
    Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to commiserate with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who lost the fight for the presidency of the SNP and also now leads a party which no longer believes in democratic Government but in civil disobedience?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can perhaps look after himself.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Lady spend a little of today considering the problems of private tenants, in
    776
    London in particular, and long leaseholders, who are facing traumatic demands for an increase in rents and repairs of about 3½ or four times? Does she agree that the Secretary of State's housing policy is in total ruins and that it is time she replaced him and did something to help people to obtain a home at a reasonable rent or ac a reasonable price?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's housing policy is excellent and is bringing the benefits of home ownership to many people who have never had that opportunity. It has also made houses available for those who wish to move from one area to another. With regard to people who have to suffer increased rents, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those who are the poorest and who cannot afford them can obtain rent rebates. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that.
    Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend find to consider the serious constitutional implications of depriving the individual Services of their political chief? Does she agree that, with the best will in the world, a Minister of State and his Under-Secretary will find it extremely difficult to be as accessible to middle rank officers in the way that previous Service Ministers were?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. A long time ago we changed from a three-Service Ministry to one Ministry of Defence. That reorganisation had not been completed. We and the Service chiefs are interested in a policy for the defence of the realm, and all the Services are involved.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for the Environment had made houses available for people who wanted to move from one area to another. Does she recall that a constituent of mine took her advice and moved to Guildford to get a job? Does she recollect that he could not obtain a house, so I wrote to her, and her reply was to the effect that the fact that my constituent could not find a house in Guildford after taking her advice had nothing to do with her?
    The Prime Minister: There would be something very wrong with Government if every Prime Minister took on the responsibility of getting a job for every person. It would be ridiculous to get a particular job in a particular way. The Secretary of State for the Environment introduced a scheme under which local authorities make a certain proportion of houses available for people who move from one area to another. That scheme is working and it is the first time that such a scheme has been introduced.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on current expenditure by local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a statement later today, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement shortly.
My Department has now analysed the revised estimates of local authorities in England and Wales for the volume of their current expenditure in 1980–81 and the budget plans of English local authorities for 1981–82. In the light of this analysis, I have today put proposals to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.
Hon. Members will recall that when local authorities in England and Wales originally submitted their budgets for 1980–81 these suggested a planned excess in the volume of current expenditure by local government as a whole of some £740 million at November 1979 prices. This was 5·6 per cent. above the Government's public expenditure plans. As a consequence, in June last year I called for revised budgets, which led local authorities to reduce this planned excess to some £350 million at 1979 prices, or 2·6 per cent. above the Government's targets. In order further to reduce this remaining excess, the Government asked the House to approve the withholding of £200 million from the increase order for England and Wales made in January 1981 on the understanding that we would be prepared to restore all or part of that sum if the outturn figures for 1980–81 showed an acceptable reduction.
The analysis of the revised estimates for 1980–81 indicates that there will still be a volume excess, which the local authority associations estimate could range from £50 million to £250 million in England. Final figures for the outturn expenditure in 1980–81 are, however, not yet available. I shall have to wait, therefore, until more accurate outturn figures are available in the autumn before considering restoration of grant.
Budgets of local authorities in England for this year—1981–82—indicate a volume of current expenditure about £800 million or 5·3 per cent above the Government's target level at November 1980 prices. Local authorities have also made provision for higher pay and price increases than allowed for in the cash limits, and have thus budgeted for a cash excess of £1,250 million above the amount assumed for current expenditure in the RSG settlement. This is an inadequate response to the Government's request for lower public expenditure and protects the current consumption and staffing levels of local government at the expense of the ratepayers, whose ability to pay is already seriously diminished by the present recession.
The traditional relationship between central Government and local government rests on the clear understanding that local government keeps within the overall financial policies of the central Government. The Government believe that this understanding must be upheld.
I am, therefore, asking all local authorities to review their budgets for 1981–82 by the end of July to achieve levels of expenditure consistent with the Goverment's public expenditure plans. If the call for revised budgets does not produce a satisfatory response, I propose to ask
778
the House in the autumn to approve a reduction in the total amount of grant available this year. I cannot be certain until I know the results of the revised budgets what would be an appropriate figure, but, if the present spending plans remain unchanged, the Government consider that £450 million would be the appropriate amount to withhold in grant. Authorities which achieve the Government's volume targets will not suffer from this reduction in grant. I also intend that those close to their volume targets will be partially exempted.
I am placing in the Library detailed figures showing how this proposal would affect individual authorities. I shall be inviting detailed consultations about these proposals with local government.
I must emphasise that it lies entirely in the hands of local government to revise its plans so as to achieve the necessary reduction of public expenditure and thus to avoid loss of grant.
The House will want to know that over one-third of all local authorities—responsible for about 11 per cent. of local authority expenditure—have already budgeted within the Government's volume targets and thus will lose no grant from this reduction if they stick to their present plans. Over half of all local authorities—responsible for over one-third of local authority expenditure—would already be protected wholly or in part from holdback.
The Government have not only to consider the consequences of excessive expenditure but also the extent of the inequities in the way in which local revenue is raised through the rates. The Government, therefore, intend to issue a consultation document on the alternatives to domestic rates in the autumn. In the meantime, we are considering further measures, including legislation next Session, which are needed to bring home to individual local authorities and their electorates the consequences of high-spending policies.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said that a similar statement would be made shortly by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will that be today, and will it be an oral statement? Some of us are fed up with the Secretary of State for Scotland hiding behind parliamentary written questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order must be addressed to me and not to anyone else. I have not yet had notice whether the statement will be written or oral.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has announced is a witch-hunt against local government? The right hon. Gentleman had the audacity and effrontery to refer to the traditional relationship between central Government and local government but is he aware that his statement totally violates that relationship? Does he accept that he has admitted that two months after the end of the previous financial year he has only a vague idea, within the range of £200 million, of what he regards as excess expenditure for that year, yet he is proposing to victimise local authorities which he accuses of overspending on the basis of figures available only two months into the present financial year? Is he aware that not a single local authority is overspending? What local authorities are doing in upholding services for their electorate is declining to conform to arbitrary unilateral ceilings laid down, not by

779
Parliament, but by one overweening person—the Secretary of State for the Environment. Refusal to give way to a dictator is defence of democracy.
Is the Secretary of State aware that he deliberately withheld his statement until after the local elections because he would have had to admit that, under the statement, all but two of the Conservative councils up for re-election would have been subject to penalty? That still did not save 1,000 Conservative councillors. Is he aware that his expenditure ceilings are so unfair and unrealistic that 65 per cent. of local authorities have found it impossible to conform to them and that 60 per cent. of Conservative-controlled authorities providing miserable services even so have been unable to conform to his criteria? Is he aware that, having cut rate support grant by a scandalous 8½ per cent. in his announcement last December and proposing now to cut it by a further 5 per cent., this is a ruinous imposition on ratepayers?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement today is an attack not on councillors but on the voters whom he is fining £450 million for their effrontery in choosing policies that they prefer rather than policies that he dictates? The Secretary of State makes a mockery of local democracy and confirms his reputation as the commissar of local government.
Mr. Heseltine: I shall try to help the right hon. Member on his first point. He attacked me for having only vague estimates of the outturn for last year. The statement made clear that they were the local authorities' estimates and not mine. I have relied upon what the local authorities have told me. As they have not yet been able to make up their minds about their own expenditure levels, I have decided that we must wait until the autumn when more accurate figures are available.
I turn to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's comments—I think that there was some substance beneath the invective—namely, the relationship between local government and central Government. I repeat what I said in my statement. It is the Government's view that the traditional position of central Government as being able to lay down the levels of public expenditure must be upheld. I remind Labour Members of the words with which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) in 1976 removed grant from local Government without any consultation. He said:
"Local authorities will know that the present economic situation makes it imperative that the Government's plans for public expenditure are not exceeded".
I further refresh the minds of Labour Members by referring to another Labour Secretary of State for the Environment, who preceded the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, namely, the late Mr. Anthony Crosland. Having just come to the job of Secretary of State, he said:
"An energetic council served by able and energetic officers will always have a thousand-and-one desirable projects on the shelf which it would like to set in motion. What the council will have to say quite simply is' no, we cannot afford them; the country cannot afford them."
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) should remember that he was a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment when that statement was made. The statement was headlined under the classic words "The party is over". The problem was that the party had hardly begun.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total revenue collected by all local authorities this year will be 18·2 per cent. more than last year? That figure surely gives the lie to the idea that he is trying to screw down local authorities' expenditure. Does he agree that the system is being abused simply because the rating system itself, which is the principal source of local government funds, is unfair, illogical and archaic? Does he therefore accept that we welcome the consultation paper as a first small step in replacing this iniquitous impost?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend refers to a very important and central point. It is relatively easy to get a mandate for higher levels of local expenditure when sometimes only a minority of the people concerned actually pay directly for the expenditure for which they vote. It is for that reason that the Conservative Party made its commitment in 1974 and we shall proceed with a consultative document in the autumn.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to let Members' questions run until 4.5 pm and then to move on to the second statement.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the vast majority of local authorities have shown considerable responsibility in their budgeting, particularly over the past few years? Will he explain what is meant by the words "close to…volume targets" in his statement? We welcome the statement that there will be a discussion document on domestic rating, but we remember that in 1974 the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister was promising to do away with domestic rating. We welcome the document, but will it be flexible in its content?
Mr. Heseltine: It will be a consultative document. Few things are more flexible than that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a very large number of local authorities have been responsible. By and large, the record of local authorities in keeping to Government targets has also been extremely good. But the whole local government machine, largely since the end of the last war, has assumed that there is to be an ever-increasing level of expenditure. As a nation which does not now enjoy the economic resources to pay for such a concept, we have to reverse attitudes and practices which have become ingrained in many parts of the public sector.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I fully understand and support my right hon. Friend's desire to stop profligate local authorities from misusing and misspending ratepayers' money, but does he agree that many local authorities, particularly those which are Conservative controlled, have been doing their best for a considerable time to live up to the Government's guidance on expenditure? If he has to come back to Parliament in the autumn, will he take account of that? Is he aware that if he does not do that, and if he adopts a blanket approach to both good and bad authorities, not only will local government be to some extent emasculated, but he will reduce some of the few remaining checks and balances in the constitution?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's last point. I value the concept of an environment of freedom for local government. But I must make the

781
point which was made time and again by Labour Members, that that can be based only upon the right of central Government to manage the national economy. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have been able to give assurances of exemption from holdback to significant numbers of authorities which have already achieved our targets. Nearly half of local authorities now have the knowledge that even on their present levels of planning there will be exemption in whole or in part from the holdback now under discussion. I think that that meets my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State remember that last October, when he was on this sort of game, he put some local authorities into the penalty box through quite unnecessary wrong facts and information that the Department of the Environment could have got right through better consultation with local authorities? In particular, will he now look at the difficulty of partnership authorities, which are being told that partnership expenditure, which was intended to be additional to other expenditure, will be counted within the totals for the purpose of these penalties?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know that the use of the transitional arrangements under the local government legislation is the subject of court proceedings. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment at this time.
With regard to the incidence of urban expenditure in the budgets of local authorities, I have said to the consultative council today that my announcement is my initial reaction to the budgets that have been sent in. I want to have detailed consultation about the points made by the hon. Gentleman and a whole range of other matters to see whether there is any way in which we can ease forward the process of achieving the Government's public expenditure targets.
If there are better ways of doing it, I am prepared to discuss that with local authorities and to raise the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I must secure the Government's public expenditure targets. I have offered local authorities the opportunity to put forward other ways of making progress in that direction, but so far they have made no positive response to that invitation.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need to introduce a rate reform Bill in the coming Session? Will he time his consultations so that the time span does not render it impossible to introduce that urgently needed Bill in the coming Session?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Two steps are involved. The first is a longer term step which involves reform of the domestic rating system. It would be unrealistic to suggest that a consultation document this autumn could lead to legislation in the next Session. However, I am aware of the urgency that my hon. Friend attaches to this matter. The Government intend to make progress as soon as practicable.
The second step that I referred to in my statement involves the possibility of a need for interim measures to
782
deal with some of the more difficult areas of pressure that could be created by the levels of expenditure that I have mentioned. That could be the subject of legislation this autumn.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If questions and answers were briefer, I could call more hon. Members.
Mr. Michael English: The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on pointing out that local authorities for 1980–81 are likely to exceed the Government's targets by less than 2 per cent. and possibly by less than 1 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the same percentage figure for the amount by which central Government have exceeded their targets for that year? If it is in excess of the figure by which local authorities have exceeded their targets, will he resign?
Mr. Heseltine: I am not unsympathetic to the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have often pointed out that local government's record in achieving its targets over a spread of years, has been extremely good——
Mr. Ted Graham: Better than central Government.
Mr. Heseltine: —and better than central Government. It is only now, when we are trying to reverse the assumption of upward direction, that we are running into such difficulties. Even now, one can see that local government is beginning to respond to the requests that central Government have made, but it is not doing so fast enough or on a sufficient scale. In the light of the general problems involved in reducing public expenditure, we should not in any way underestimate the scale of local government's response.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all responsible people will welcome the Government's announcement about the consultative paper on changes in the domestic rating system? What action is my right hon. Friend prepared to take against those county councils that are likely, because of the change of control, to issue a supplementary rate? Might that not be extremely damaging to industry in particular areas of the country? Is it not hypocritical of the Opposition to play on unemployment so much when their local authorities are likely to add to the number of unemployed because of supplementary rates?
Mr. Heseltine: That is one reason why I must go for a revision-of-budgets exercise in order to ensure that I have the most up-to-date information about local authorities' intentions. In my statement I have made it clear, in a general way, that the Government would not be prepared to stand back and to watch changes of the type that my hon. Friend referred to and would, if necessary, be prepared to legislate next Session. At this stage of consultation with local government and at this stage in the Government's analysis of the problems, I do not want to make specific threats. However, it must be understood that there is now a fundamental challenge to the assumptions about the relationship between central Government and local government.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Secretary of State accept that most beleaguered city authorities, such as Leicester, are doing their best to provide services for those who live in the city? Is he aware

783
that, essentially, his statement means that all sections of the community, particularly those most in need of the services, will get fewer services?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman implies that wealth and jobs can be created in cities only by local authorities and within the public sector. I do not accept that assumption. By charging rates that are higher than those that can reasonably be afforded local authorities are deterring and destroying private investment and job creation in the private sector.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Although my right hon. Friend is right to take steps to prevent certain local authorities from undermining Government control of public expenditure, does he accept that the answer must lie in the abolition of the rating system? We need not more consultative documents or reform of the domestic rating system, but its abolition.
Mr. Heseltine: To paraphrase my right hon. Friend's question, he is saying that we need a system to replace the present domestic rating system. That will be the subject of a consultation paper in the autumn. The House will appreciate that it is important to understand that, just because one changes the basis of raising money, one does not automatically affect the Government's ability to control the level of expenditure. Indeed, some of the alternatives to domestic rates might encourage increased expenditure.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, try as they may, some local authorities cannot control expenditure? I have in mind areas such as mine, where 25 per cent. of the population are immigrants. That means difficulties in housing, education, health and so on. Thousands of the immigrants' relatives are still coming in. What can a council do if relatives come into the country and make an overcrowded house even more overcrowded? A council has to find housing for such people. How can it do so if the amount of money it receives is continually cut?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is another side to the coin, namely, the need to ensure that there are job opportunities for many of those living in such areas. Over-high rate levels are bound to destroy job opportunities and to create another set of problems for local government or central Government. For the first time we have a method of measuring independently the relative needs of individual authorities through the grant mechanism. The factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned can therefore be taken into account in the grant distribution process.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Although I completely accept my right hon. Friend's determination to control the volume of rate support grant, does he agree that there are some curious quirks in the way that the system works? Under the grant-related formula, West Sussex county council spends less than the national average but more than it was supposed to spend compared with 1978–79 simply because of the increase in population. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that such strange quirks are ironed out so that a proper system can be presented that is fair to every authority?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has mentioned a fundamental challenge that faces local government and myself. It is a question of how to move from the volume
784
targets which we had no choice but to set—based on the outturn for 1978–79, when we first came to office—towards a system that reflects the needs of individual authorities. In this afternoon's consultative council, I told local authorities that I wished to talk to them about such issues. I must achieve the Government's public expenditure targets, but I am happy to have detailed consultations about such problems. The base line of 1978–79, from which we requested the economies, reflected the highest level of current consumption and of manpower in the history of local government.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not clear and inevitable that these cuts will lead to still more people on the dole? Instead of reducing the number of building workers, home-helps and dustmen, should not the right hon. Gentleman increase their numbers in order to relieve the tremendous well of suffering and, at the same time, to reduce unemployment?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is on a familiar theme. One consequence of the ever-increasing level of current consumption in local government is that the Government have had to look elsewhere for economies in order to pay for it. Under the last Labour Government the capital investment programme was £3 billion lower at the end compared with the first year.
It was cut by half, but the current expenditure was increased by 10 per cent. There is a direct trade-off. Anthony Crosland was honest about that when he said that the party was over. He said that he had to make exactly that sort of allocation of priorities in housing. That is the dilemma with which we are all faced. As long as the current consumption bills rise as they have done for 30 years, the capital bills will be cut to pay for them.
Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State accept that some of us would give no more than a guarded welcome to the consultation document. We have seen many similar exercises over the years. Those of us who went through the Layfield operation know that it is much easier to demonstrate the deficiencies of the rating system than to find an acceptable and workable alternative.
Does the Secretary of State accept that where local authorities make good from supplementary rates the cuts in grant, the ratepayers will find themselves taking the unfortunate role of "piggy in the middle" in a tug-of-war? If the Secretary of State wants that sort of "High Noon" confrontation, why should the ratepayers have to pick up the bill?
Mr. Heseltine: The alternatives to domestic rates have been the subject of a long period of discussion. There are many difficulties to be overcome, and the consultation paper will deal with them. The House will accept that the anomalies and the pressures of the rating system today are such that there is a need to replace it with a fairer system that would be subject to less criticism.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the problems of the ratepayers who, as he put it, are in the middle. It is with this in mind that I mentioned that the Government are considering legislation for next Session in order to bring home to the local authorities and their electorates in the areas concerned the consequences of their high-spending policies.
Mr. Michael Shersby: May I press my right hon. Friend to give the House some indication of the

785
interim measures that he has in mind, pending consideration of the consultation document? Will he say what consultation will take place with local authorities about those interim measures, and when he expects to bring them into force?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that deliberately today I have not announced the specific measures that the Government are considering. But it is fair to say that within my Department a significant number of options are being considered. At this moment, while I am asking local government to revise its budgets, it would be seen as unnecessarily threatening, before I get any reaction to that exercise, to produce a catalogue of things that we might do. As my statement intimated, we are considering legislation for next Session. Therefore, there is not a great deal of time left, if we intend to do so, before I shall have to make further public statements.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In his judgment of these matters, is the right hon. Gentleman fully seized of the importance of three factors? The first is the genuine needs of inner city areas such as Harlesden compared with the lush pastures of Henley. Secondly, there is the responsibility of local authorities with large ethnic minorities. Thirdly, in the International Year of Disabled People, is it not appalling to ask local authorities to cut expenditure in that direction?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will appreciate that we have made no suggestion that expenditure on the disabled should be cut. Indeed, within my Department, where I have a specific understanding on this question, we have made definite attempts to ensure that a greater concern will be shown for the disabled, particularly in this year.
The hon. Member asked me about the problems of the inner cities and of the ethnic minorities. It is precisely because we recognise that there are these difficulties between local authorities that we introduced the grant related expenditure assessment concept, so that there could be a statistical reflection of the distribution of rate support grant. If any hon. Members are not satisfied about the insistence placed upon those factors, now is the time to have a discussion about the additional weight that
786
should be given to them. It is the first time that anyone can have such a discussion, either in this House or in local government, about the priorities that we should select.
Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend, when he is contemplating penalties in the autumn, consider moving away from the 1978–79 outturn as a base? In practice, it has penalised a large number of authorities which have complied with the wishes of successive Governments over a number of years.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend, when his consultation statement is issued, ensure that due attention is paid to the Layfield recommendation that rates should not be abolished but topped up by other forms of income, thus preserving some independent source of finance?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend will want to see this issue properly ventilated at the time of our consultation process. He mentioned the conflict between the 1978–79 volume targets and the GREA targets, if they are to be so described. We have never accepted that they should be. I am anxious to have a discussion with local authorities about how we can move from the 1978–79 base line, which becomes progressively outdated, but as yet I have had no positive suggestions from local government.
Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concept of the relationship between local government and central Government is one of partnership? I speak with 18 years' experience of local government at my back. It is not a concept which means having a mace-wielding gauleiter imposing his will on local authorities which have responsibilities to their electors and to their ratepayers.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also understand that in Wiltshire—which he was praising not long ago for holding the rate by cutting services—the authority is expecting to be penalised by £3 million? Is not that kicking his friends in the teeth?
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Member has had so much experience in local government, he must have seen Labour Secretaries of State putting forward precisely the same argument that I am putting forward today. Indeed, the most conscious intervention of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar who, without consultation and without a statement in Parliament, told local authorities that they must reduce their expenditure, and introduced a penalty in order to ensure that they did so.

Local Authority Expenditure (Wales)
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on current expenditure by local authorities in Wales in 1981–82.
My Department has analysed the local authorities' budget plans for 1981–82, and these show that in aggregate planned current expenditure will exceed the Government's target by about 2·2 per cent. or £21 million at November 1980 prices.
Any current expenditure excess is a matter of serious concern and I have given very careful consideration to the need for corrective action. In doing so I have taken account, first, of the fact that in recent years budgets have in aggregate overstated the actual volume of current expenditure by proportions not dissimilar from the present indicated excess, and, secondly, the considered view of the Welsh local authority associations that the Government's current expenditure target will be met.
In view of these considerations, and noting that in aggregate Welsh local authorities have clearly made efforts to meet the Government's current expenditure targets, I have decided not to call for revised budgets or to withhold grant at supplementary report stage this autumn.
In adopting this course, my determination to see that current expenditure is kept at the level allowed for in the RSG settlement is in no way lessened; rather, I am deferring judgment on the need to withhold grant. If, despite the local authority associations' views, there is an overspend this year, I will take action to reduce the total amount of grant available by the amount of that excess. In so doing I would protect authorities who had made an appropriate contribution to the necessary expenditure reductions.
This decision reflects my trust that Welsh local authorities will meet our expenditure target. It is entirely up to them, both individually and collectively, whether I will need to withhold grant at a later stage.
I have communicated this decision to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. I have also told it that I shall be consulting it in due course about the matters concerning the rating system to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred at the end of his statement this afternoon.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister feel that running through the whole statement there is a thread that the lesson of the loss of South Glamorgan two months ago has not gone unheeded? For that change of heart, which may be only temporary, we should be grateful, and grateful also that the reductions in services and hardship suffered by the electorate will not be aggravated by further cuts. This appears, for the time being, to be a standstill decision. We are glad that although the majority of Welsh counties and districts have possibly transgressed, for the time being at any rate they are to be given a stay of execution and that we are to be saved from further injurious Government interference.
The sword of Damocles still hangs above us and may well strike some later. This is a sneaking imposition of further controls. Why did the Secretary of State not have
788
the courage to come into the open before the county council elections? Let him remember that the district elections will be available for the electorate to make their views known next year, should further cuts be made.
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman's reaction to my statement is in sharp contrast to that of the local authority associations, which recognise its importance. and recognise also that it confirms the Government's willingness and ability under the new RSG system to deal separately with the problems of Wales. They recognise, too, that we are responding to their undertakings and their belief. They said that they believed that they could meet the Government's targets and they noted that I was placing that responsibility firmly on the local authorities.
As to South Glamorgan and press reports that it may revise its budget upwards and introduce a supplementary rate, I have made it clear that if there is an excess of expenditure and I have to come back on this, those authorities that are responsible for it will have to pay the penalty. If South Glamorgan, or any other authority, increases its spending plans it will face the possibility of a larger hold-back some time next year. That will mean that the electors of that authority will face a heavier rate burden next year, in addition to the supplementary rate burden that would be imposed this year.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I propose to allow these questions to run till 4.25 pm, which, with our customary Welsh brevity, ought to enable us to get everyone in.
Sir Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for the degree of co-operation that he has received from several of the Welsh local authorities? In connection with the questions asked about English local authorities where there has been a change of political control and a decision to levy another rate, will my right hon. Friend implore any authorities that contemplate such action, including South Glamorgan, to think again, in view of the injurious effects that it would have on many companies and firms that are facing other difficulties?
Mr. Edwards: In my consultations with the local authority associations I thanked them for their co-operation collectively, which has enabled me to take this decision. To those authorities that might introduce a supplementary rate I pointed out that not only would that have an impact on them, but that it could create an excess overall that would penalise all other local authorities that had not fully met the targets. It would have the effect of imposing an additional rate burden next year in addition to the supplementary rate burden this year, which could only be damaging for business, industry and those who are seeking to provide jobs in those local authority areas.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the Government's initiative in considering alternatives to the domestic rating system. This is long overdue. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that his Government will bring forward legislation in the next parliamentary Session or within the next three years to change the system? If the Secretary of State is going to claw back the £22 million suggested in his statement, by how much will unemployment rise in Wales?
Mr. Edwards: On the first point, I cannot give a timetable for the major change that would be needed to

789
alter the whole system of finance for local government following a period of consultation. This is a major long-term exercise and it is impossible to give an undertaking. As to a clawback of £21 million or £22 million, the point is that the local authorities have told me that they do not expect there to be any need for this. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's last question is hypothetical and there is no need for me to answer it.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Welsh local authorities, whatever their political complexion, need the support of a resolute Secretary of State if they are to resist plausible demands for ever-higher expenditure, which can only result in rate increases which will inflict great hardship on individuals and lead to massive local unemployment as firms are driven out of the area?
Mr. Edwards: I made it clear to the local authorities that I was as determined as was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see that the Government's spending plans were met. The local authorities believe that they can do this. I also emphasised to them the point made by my right hon. Friend about the effect that excessive rates have on industry, and therefore on jobs.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that with an increase in unemployment of over 80 per cent. under this Government there are massive problems facing local authorities? Should he not therefore think of giving them extra resources to spend, since there is a need during a recession to indertake public works to encourage employment? Will the consultative document that is to be issued on the rating system deal also with the water rate? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider abolishing the water rate, rather than revising it?
Mr. Edwards: The water rate is a different issue. My statement deals with the rating system for local government. On the first point, as the Government have stated repeatedly, the overall levels of public expenditure and their impact on borrowing and interest rates are extremely important if we are to see the economy turn round, as we all hope. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pointed out a few minutes ago, one of the difficulties in calling for capital programmes of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is that local authorities have used their resources increasingly on consumption, and therefore made those programmes more difficult to achieve.
Mr. Tom Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Welsh Members will be pleased that this statement differs significantly from that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? The issues being forced upon the people were spelt out by the Layfield committee several years ago and were touched on by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman prepare a White Paper, or a Green Paper, setting out in broad terms proposals to maintain local government as local government and to finance it locally, with all the economic consequences for Wales, so that the Welsh people may make a judgment on their position in this grossly over-centralised country and its assorted financial arrangements?
Mr. Edwards: We have said that we will issue a consultative document on alternatives to the rating system, not on alternatives to the structure of local government. We are not contemplating putting forward a consultative document on changing the status of local government. We are concerned with consultations about the nature of local government finance.
Mr. Keith Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the enthusiasm with which his statement has been greeted by all Opposition parties, with the exception of members of Plaid Cymru, who, regrettably, are not in their seats, will be echoed throughout the whole of Wales, because it allows local authorities to order their own houses and is not a diktat from the Government? This freedom is so often decried by those who are less than enthusiastic about what the Government are trying to do. Will my right hon. Friend also tell the House, lest it be thought that the Members of the principal Opposition party actually represent what the local authorities believe, that when he met the authorities they, too, were enthusiastic about what he had to say?
Mr. Edwards: The local authorities gave a warm welcome to what I had to say and expressed their thanks that I was prepared to accept their word that they would meet the Government's objectives in their own way. The chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee said that I was placing the responsibility firmly on local government as a whole. He welcomed the fact that I did not intend to pick out individual authorities, but was confident that local authorities collectively could come up with what the Government were asking for.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call all those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that, despite his statement, all our local authorities are fed up with his dictatorial attitude? Whereas the measures that he has introduced penalise the ratepayers, it is the elected representatives who have to take the can back when services prove to be inadequate. Need I remind the Secretary of State of the disgraceful way in which Newport has been treated over the sale of prefabricated houses? Added to this is the confusion that has been caused over this issue by the broadcast made by the Under-Secretary of State last week in the "Week In-Week Out" programme. Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman gave priority to clearing up this issue for the Newport ratepayers?
Mr. Edwards: The representatives of the local authorities who saw me this afternoon thanked me for not pursuing dictatorial policies and spoke in exactly opposite terms to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes). I am glad that Newport has reversed its decision and decided to accept its responsibilities under the law of the land and to carry out the law as it has been passed by Parliament.
Mr. Delwyn Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my county of Powys had the lowest increase in expenditure in percentage terms of any county in England and Wales? While I appreciate that he has no intention of penalising overspending authorites, will he consider giving a bonus to Powys, which has pulled its weight?
Mr. Edwards: I congratulate the local authorities that have achieved these reductions and therefore made the task easier for local authorities elsewhere in Wales which, because the overall spending of local authorities is not over the aggregate target, will perhaps not be penalised.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State saying any more than that on the past record of underspending on budgets the Welsh local authorities are likely to be on target? Does not that target, as a result of high unemployment and demographic factors, mean real cuts for Welsh ratepayers and Welsh residents?
Mr. Edwards: We asked for a reduction in expenditure by local government. By the way that they have set about this task the Welsh local authorities have shown that this is possible without destroying services, and, incidentally, have set a very good example for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Edward Rowlands: We hear a great deal about the traditional relationship between central and local government. Is it not also traditional that elected councillors are entitled to put proposals to electors which may or may not lead to an increase in rates? The councillors in South Glamorgan put forward proposals and won a mandate from the people. Will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will not interfere with the democratic right of the people of South Glamorgan?
Mr. Edwards: I am saying that if there is an aggregate excess expenditure I shall act to correct that excess. The authorities that are responsible for that excess will have to pay for it. If one local authority chooses to increase its budget, that will threaten the position of other local authorities and, inevitably, the local people will have to pay higher rates next year as well as this year.

Right of Reply in the Media
4.23 pm
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press, or on radio or television,; and for connected purposes.
The concentration of press ownership has gone so far in Britain that five groups now control 95 per cent. of the circulation of daily newspapers and 96 per cent. of the circulation of Sunday newspapers. As Mr. Baldwin said, they have power without responsibility. One man, Rupert Murdoch, owns The Sun, The News of the World, The Times and The Sunday Times, as well as newspapers in America and Australia.
On 27 April, the latest available date, the circulation of The Sun was 3,845,575 copies. That means an estimated readership of about 10 million. A story appearing in its columns can do untold damage. The Bill aims to give the public a limited safeguard. I declare an interest as a former reporter on the Manchester Evening News and the Daily Herald, and as a lifelong and continuing member of the National Union of Journalists.
I take a typical case of the distortion practised by several national newspapers. The front page headline
"Cancer patients sent home to die"
was published during the "winter of discontent", 1978–79. It would be difficult to imagine a report more damaging to the hospital and the union concerned—indeed to the whole Labour and trade union movement.
I have checked the facts carefully with the union concerned, the National Union of Public Employees. The facts are that the decision was taken by the director of radiotherapy, not by the area health authority, nor by the union. The most serious cases were not sent home. The area health authority and the union issued a denial. Some papers printed it, but it appeared in a couple of sentences buried in the midst of a long story.
What remedy has an aggrieved individual, company or organisation? Precious little. It can take the Press Council months to announce a decision, and by that time it is too late; the damage has been done. Moreover, the Press Council has no power to require the newspaper concerned to print that decision. In two recent cases the paper refused to do so. A poor person has the utmost difficulty in suing for libel, although Sir James Goldsmith has no such problem. Legal aid is not available for libel cases.
The Bill aims to provide a legal right of reply. Britain has been lagging in this respect behind many European countries. Such a law has operated successfully for many years in West Germany, France and Denmark. I am grateful to the ambassadors of those three countries in particular for providing me with details, and to Tom Baistow, a highly respected British journalist, who has inspired the proposal in this country.
Under my Bill an individual, organisation or company will be able to require the editor of a newspaper which has carried a factually inaccurate or distorted report involving that individual, organisation or company to print a reply within three days. The reply must be printed free of charge and be of equal length to, and in the same position as, the original article. If the editor refuses, the case will go to court, and the court must decide within 10 days. If the complainant's right of reply is upheld, the editor will be required to print it immediately and also to pay a fine

793
varying between £2,000 and £40,000. In election periods the three-day limit will be reduced for daily newspapers to 24 hours.
The same right will apply where there has been a misrepresentation or distortion of fact on the radio or television. This is vital, as damage can be done on these media before an even wider audience than the readership of a newspaper. The existing libel laws will continue and in no way be changed.
The Bill is on almost identical lines with the French law. In that country in the case of television there have been, in the years 1976 to 1979, 19 instances where the right of reply has been exercised by private individuals, and 13 instances on Radio France. In addition, the right of reply has been exercised three times on French television by Opposition parties.
The question may be asked, why go to all this trouble for 35 cases? The answer surely is that the law has meant that hundreds or thousands of other cases have been prevented because TV and radio have become more responsible and more cautious.
I expect that if leave to introduce the Bill is opposed, two arguments will be used. The first is that the Bill would interfere with the freedom of the press. Certainly, it would hinder papers from telling lies without any recourse by those calumniated. It would greatly increase the freedom of the individual. This is an extension of democracy, not a curtailment of it.
The second argument, I fancy, will be to ask who would decide that a story was false, misleading or distorted if the editor denied that it was so? This objection has not proved insuperable in other countries. In West Germany, if required, a court of law decides. In Denmark, the appeal may go to a corrections commission. In France, a case involving the press goes to court. In an appeal involving radio or television, which is evidently considered more serious, a case goes to a five-member commission attached to a Minister and consisting of two members of the Conseil d'État, two members of the Cour de Cassation, roughly the appeals court, and a member of the Higher Council for Audio-Visual Affairs. These gentlemen may not be connected with radio or television companies. Under my Bill, in the case of dispute, the issue would be left to the court.
The Press Council has received many complaints about the failure of editors, as the present law stands, to publish letters correcting misreporting or deliberate misrepresentation. The TUC last autumn overwhelmingly voted for a right of reply for victims of media bias or distortion. The Labour Party media study group, composed of working journalists, broadcasters and other media experts, unanimously supports the proposal.
I am not suggesting that this Bill is a panacea. It is a limited but positive measure. The bias against the Labour, trade union and peace movement will continue in most of the British media for as long as ownership remains as it is. However, the Bill will draw some of the claws of the media magnates. It will help people of all political persuasions and of none. I need hardly add that Conservative Members too, can be misrepresented in the media. It has happened.
794
Some of the more serious effects of editorial bias could be quickly—I stress the word "quickly"—prevented by this relatively simple Bill. It would be a deterrent to newspaper owners who flout the Press Council's limited powers with impunity. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will carefully consider the Bill and its objectives which affect all of us. I am confident that, even though this is only a first airing of the proposal, it will eventually—like the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965—become part of the law of the land. I seek leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr.Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Miss Jo Richardson.

RIGHT OF REPLY IN THE MEDIA
Mr. Frank Allaun accordingly presented a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press, or on radio or television; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Ordered,
That the Report [20 May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Le Marchant]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—
(1) The order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, amendments to Clauses 1 to 33, Schedule 2, Clause 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 and 36, Schedule 4, Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 5, Clauses 40 to 46, Schedule 6, Clauses 47 and 48, Schedules 7 to 9, Clause 49, Schedule 1 and New Schedules.
(2) The allotted days which under the Order [29 April] are given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Allotted day and Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Government New Clauses

7.00 pm

Remaining New Clauses

Midnight

Second day

Amendments up to the end of Clause 12

9.00 pm

Amendments up to the end of Clause 32

Midnight

Third day

Amendments up to the end of Clause 49

8.00 pm

Remaining proceedings on Consideration

9.00 pm

Third Reading

Midnight

Orders of the Day

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

New Clause 1

  RIGHT TO REGISTRATION AS BRITISH CITIZEN BY VIRTUE OF FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP ETC.
  `(1) A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British citizen made within the period of 12 months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied—

  (a) that the requirements specified in subsection (2) are fulfilled in the case of that person's father; and

  (b) that if that person had been born before commencement and had become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of section 5 of the 1948 Act (citizenship by descent) as a result of the registration of his birth at a United Kingdom consulate under paragraph(b) of the proviso to section 5(1) of that Act, he would immediately before commencement have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 as then in force (connection with United Kingdom through parent or grandparent).

  (2) The requirements referred to in subsection (1)(a) are that the father of the person to whom the application relates—

  (a) immediately before commencement or at his death (whichever was earlier)—

  (i) was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of section 5 of the 1948 Act (citizenship by descent) or was a person who, under any provision of the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965, was deemed for the purposes of the proviso to section 5(1) of the 1948 Act to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only; and

  (ii) was married to that person's mother; and

  (iii) was ordinarily resident in a foreign country (no flatter which) within the meaning of the 1948 Act; and

  (b) either—

  (i) became a British citizen at commencement and remained such a citizen throughout the period from commencement to the date of the application or, if he died during that period, throughout the period from commencement to his death; or

  (ii) would have become a British citizen at commencement but for his death.'.—[Mr. Raison.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 100, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (2) to (7) and insert—
  '(2) A person born outside the United Kingdom who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1) shall be such a citizen if the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate or High Commission within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later, and either the father or the mother was a British citizen at the time of birth.'.
  and Government amendment No. 24 and amendment No. 89, in clause 12, page 10, line 41, after 'descent)', insert—
  'otherwise than by virtue of paragraph(b) of the proviso of section 5(1) of the 1948 Act (citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of consular registration)'.
  4.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  796
  The intention of the new clause is to preserve for a transitional period of five years the effect of the current facilities for passing on citizenship by consular registration where it gives the right of abode here. The Government believe that the current arrangements for the transmission of citizenship as a result of consular registration are not satisfactory. They operate only if the father is a citizen by descent. They do not extend to cases where only the mother is such a citizen. They also operate only in foreign countries.
  Registration of births does not lead to citizenship where the birth takes place in a Commonwealth country. Consular registration can also preserve citizenship by descent where the links with this country are in practice minimal. For these reasons, the Bill that we introduced in January did not provide for the continuation of this system of passing on citizenship. I should like, to help to put the matter in context, to remind the House of what the Bill proposes on descent. It proposes that in general citizenship shall be passed on to children born overseas for one generation. That is already the position as far as children born in Commonwealth countries are concerned. Little difficulty would appear to have arisen. It seemed to the Government not unreasonable to apply the same system to foreign countries. This meant ending descent through consular registration. If we are to base citizenship on some form of close connection with this country, we have to limit citizenship by descent.
  One significant extension of the descent arrangements is proposed in clause 2. This is that women as well as men should be able to pass on their citizenship to children born to them in the first generation overseas. In effect, this increases enormously the chances of a child born overseas having a parent from whom he can derive our citizenship. It must be the case that many of the people who are concerned about the ending of consular registration have nothing to fear because the wife will have been born in the United Kingdom or their children will marry wives born here. The extension of transmission rights to women is therefore not just a piece of meaningless window dressing. It has a marked practical effect on the extent to which our citizenship can be passed on.
  The Bill also proposes in clause 3 a generous system of registration of children whose parents are in various forms of overseas employment at the time of their births. This applies to births in Commonwealth countries as well as in foreign countries. The clause requires that the employment be linked with the United Kingdom but amendments that the Government have tabled would ensure that all reasonable connections with the United Kingdom through employment are covered. We have taken careful note of the representations made to us in this regard and have met many of the points made to us. This is, therefore, another area where those who are concerned about the cessation of consular registration may well find that they have a r0069ght to register their children.
  It is also often said that people sent abroad by their employers for limited terms of duty abroad will be penalised by the absence of consular registration in the future. This, I believe, is a serious misunderstanding of the overall effect of the Bill. It is unlikely that, in such cases of people being sent out from the United Kingdom, neither parent would be a British citizen born here, and so unable to transmit. If that happened, the employment overseas would often be covered by clause 3. If that was not the case, the child might still have an entitlement to

  797
  registration on coming to the United Kingdom and living here for three years with the parents after their tour of overseas duty was concluded.
  I believe therefore that the descent arrangements in the Bill are at least as generous as those that apply under the current legislation. They are certainly more generous in their application to children born in Commonwealth countries who have no access to a form of consular registration. They are arguably no less generous than the provisions that I have mentioned that are taken into account than the current facilities in foreign countries. The introduction of descent through the female line is very significant.
  Finally, before I come to the new clause, I would like to make one point clear. This concerns the right of abode. Consular registration may ensure that citizenship is passed on from generation to generation in the male line. But it does not ensure that the right of abode is also transmitted. Whether or not the child has the right of abode once registered depends on his having the requisite parental or grandparental connection with the United Kingdom. It is important to be clear about this since in some cases—where the descent from ancestors born here is remote—those who so prize the right to consular registration may well already be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without the right of abode here. They would become British overseas citizens under the Bill. In almost all such cases the children concerned will also hold the citizenship of the country of residence.
  Nevertheless, I was impressed by the arguments in favour of continuing consular registration to a limited extent. We agree that people who had a reasonable expectation of seeing their children acquire citizenship under the present arrangements should not be cut off in mid-stream at commencement. In other areas of the Bill, people who have entitlements to registration which are to be discontinued retain them on a transitional basis for five years. In our view, this is a reasonable basis on which to approach the current arrangements for consular registration, and that is what the new clause provides.
  Subsection (1) provides that a person born in a foreign country within five years of commencement shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied on certain matters. Application must be made within 12 months of the birth. It should be noted that, although the end result is the same, the new clause provides for registration as a British citizen on application to the Secretary of State and not, as now, for citizenship to be acquired on registration of the birth at a consulate.
  The matters on which the Secretary of State must be satisfied are as follows. The child's father must have been or be deemed to have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became a British citizen at commencement, or would have done so but for his death. If he survived to become a British citizen at commencement he must have remained one throughout the period from commencement to the date of the application unless he died first. He must immediately before commencement have been married to the child's mother, and he must have been ordinarily resident at commencement in a foreign country.
  The matters that I have just mentioned preserve the effect of the existing law. Under that, only fathers can transmit, and they can only transmit in foreign countries
  798
  to their legitimate offspring. It is, therefore, only married men resident in foreign countries who can have a well-based expectation now of being able to transmit their citizenship by consular registration.
  I should mention that subsection (1)(b) of the new clause ensures that no child shall be registered as a British citizen unless he would, had he been consularly registered under the law in force now, have acquired the right of abode here on registration. I have mentioned already that the right of abode may not be acquired now in all cases. Where it is not acquired, those concerned will become British overseas citizens under the Bill. Amendment No. 40 to clause 24 ensures that a child who does not qualify for British citizenship because he would not have acquired the right of abode under the legislation in force now, will be able to be registered as a British overseas citizen.
  Amendment No. 24 to clause 12 provides that any child registered under the provisions of this new clause shall be a British citizen by descent. That is obviously right, given that those who become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies now on consular registration become such citizens by descent only.
  New clause 2 makes parallel arrangements for registration as a citizen of the British dependent territories. Amendment No. 40 provides that in certain circumstances the child of a British overseas citizen may also benefit from a similar provision.
  I sum up our proposals in this way. The present arrangements for citizenship to descend on consular registration of birth is not satisfactory. It is right that it should disappear from the permanent provisions for acquiring our citizenship. However, despite the generous alternative provisions for descent introduced by the Bill, we accept the case for a transitional five-year extension of the effects of the current consular registration entitlement. This will ensure that people are not cut off suddenly at Royal Assent with no opportunity to consider their situation. Five years seems enough time in which to ensure that people get used to the Bill's new descent provisions, which should in fact lead to very few difficulties for those concerned. I commend the new clause to the House.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I find myself in general agreement with the purpose of the new clause. However, I wish to raise a query in regard to subsection (2)(a)(ii) of new clause 1, which provides as a requirement that the father shall immediately, before commencement, have been married to the mother of the person for whose citizenship the new clause is providing. I wonder whether the effect is really what is intended and, if so, what the justification is.
  It would mean that if, after the birth of the person concerned, the couple were divorced the facilities of this new clause would no longer apply. I am not clear why that is equitable, since the condititons for the child securing British citizenship were fulfilled at the time of the child's birth, both in the case of the father and as to the fact of the marriage. Is it reasonable that those conditions should, as it were, be retrospectively revoked by a subsequent divorce or separation, which surely can have no effect—or should have no effect—on the status and rights of the child? Perhaps I have misapprehended the consequences of subsection (2)(a)(ii), but if I am correct, it would appear to need justification.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I wish to speak to the amendment standing in my name and in the name of 18 of my hon. Friends. Early-day motion 333 on the Order Paper expresses exactly the same sentiments as my amendment. It has been signed by 23 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, so the stated support for this is from 34 of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The purpose of my amendment is to try to put right an unfairness which I see developing as result of the changes which the Government are making regarding nationality by descent.
  I welcome the changes, which are entirely on the right lines. I do not challenge anything that has been done by way of change in the system of acquiring and transmitting nationality. However, there is one group of people who I believe will be unfairly treated if the Bill as drafted is not changed. They are the people born overseas of British subjects, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a right of abode here, who, until the Bill becomes law, can transmit their British citizenship, whomsoever they marry but who, when the Bill becomes law, will cease to be British subjects—as all of us will be—and will become British citizens by descent and not full British citizens. Therefore, they will not be able, other things being equal, to transmit their nationality unless they fulfil certain other qualifications. I appreciate that there are certain ways that they can put this right, but there are people alive today who were born with the right of transmitting their descent, and that right will be taken away from them retrospectively if the Bill is passed unamended.
  One of the principles that we have always tried to apply is that we do not take away any rights that people have had because we are changing the law, however good a reason there is for a change in the law. There has been much discussion and worry about this matter. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who were on the Committee on the Bill have received a great deal of correspondence. I shall not bore the House at great length but I should like to read two letters from constituents. They express worries which I cannot answer. I do not believe that the Government can answer them either, unless an amendment such as that which I propose is carried.
  One constituent says:
  "I am writing to you in your capacity as a Member of the Select Committee on the Nationality Bill. After completing National Service in the RAF in Singapore I qualified as a chartered accountant in 1955 and joined Price Waterhouse in Brussels after an interview in London. In due course I got married here and my children—now 20 and 18—were born here. I understood them to be British by birth"——
  that, of course, is not a phrase which means anything in law, but my constituent considered his children to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as indeed they were——
  "but it appears that they were 'only' British by descent. Under the Bill, if they have children outside the UK and the other parent was not born there, such children will not have British Citizenship and right of abode in the UK. I feel that this retroactive change in their status and rights is completely against British legislative tradition and not just upsetting to people like me and my children but also against British interests."
  My constituent goes on to make some other points. His is a fundamental point which I cannot answer as the Bill stands.
  The second letter is of the same substance but the situation is the other way round. My constituent writes:
  800
  "My wife and I are most concerned about the Nationality Bill, and the potentially damaging effects its provisions would have on our unborn child.
  I work for an international company, in a subsidiary whose output is mainly exported. I have been offered the opportunity to further my career in the company's European headquarters, which is located in Paris.
  The appointment begins before the expected date of birth of our child…Under normal circumstances, I should take up the job, and our child would be born in France—unfortunately, the Nationality Bill means that the child would then have only limited rights to pass on its UK citizenship to its own children, and this is a disability we should rather not inflict on it."
  That is a problem for the future and one which, fortunately, can be put right. Nevertheless, it is an example of the potential injustice that we shall do if we pass the Bill as it is at present drafted because some people born with the right to transmit their nationality to their children will have that right taken away from them.
  I am sure that the Minister will want to point out the many ways that a child can get the right back and that allowing us to transmit citizenship down the female as well as the male line will pick up many people whose fathers might have been born abroad, come home and married a girl born in Britain. There are many other ways that the problem can be put right; nevertheless the matter is fundamental. We should not be doing a service to the people whom we represent if we let anybody suffer as a result of our changing a system which needs changing but which at the same time takes away a birthright from people who believe that they can transmit their birthright and British citizenship to their children. Unless an amendment such as mine is passed they will not be able to do that.
  That is why I earnestly ask the Government to accept the amendment. If they find that it is in any way faulty-I know that the matter is complicated—I hope that they will give an undertaking to find a better way of achieving what I want to achieve—that is, to put right the position of the small number of people born abroad whose births were registered at consulates, by which act the parents showed their intention to maintain their birthright as full British subjects. No Bill should take away that fundamental right from even one person who believes that he is a British subject.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) airs an issue that has given rise to a great deal of concern among those who are affected. However, I do not accept his argument. The anxiety has been exaggerated. Many people who feel that their children will be deprived of the right of citizenship will acquire citizenship. Most of the people who wrote to me described their circumstances and I found them to come within the provisions of clause 3. Their children will not lose the right to be British citizens. The hon. Member for Petersfield says that the right is historic and should be retained by the people who have that right now.
  There is a basic injustice in consular registration. It applies only to births in an alien country. It does not apply to births in a Commonwealth country. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a child in a Commonwealth country are not entitled by registration to citizenship for that child. They may achieve it in other ways, but not by registration. The Bill puts right that basic inequity.
  There is an additional problem. Some people affected by the change not only have the lineal right to register their children as citizens, but have a continuing interest in their

  801
  relationship with Britain. They return regularly, send their children to school here and live here at the end of each period abroad. However, some people who are entitled to consular registration in an alien country have little connection with Britain. The members of a whole community in the Argentine, for instance, claim a relationship and register their children as British although they have no real connection with Britain.
  During our discussions on the Bill I have always been a little chary of talking about real connections, because some people have a defined view of what is a real connection. If it is to have any meaning in relation to citizenship, people who have not had any practical association with Britian for many generations should not be able to continue with citizenship for their children simply by registration at a British embassy.
  I do not understand the proposed amendment precisely, but is does not involve simply the question of not removing retrospectively rights that children believe they have.
  Mr. Mates: The amendment does not carry on the practice. It deals purely with those who on the day that the Act comes into force are consularly registered. It does not deal with the future at all.
  Mr. Lyon: I understand the intention, but I am not sure whether it achieves that. I should be against continuing the practice. The argument about retrospection is a little fine. We are talking about a person as yet unborn. The person born has already acquired the citizenship. The argument is that that person, because he acquired citizenship by descent cannot pass on the right to his children who are not yet born and who can inherit only through him. I do not regard that as retrospective. It relates to future children. A person does not necessarily have the right to pass on citizenship to his children. That is not a right in any real sense of the word. I accept that there is a question of definition.
  The issue is emotional. It involves people who believe that they have a right to continue to live abroad and to pass on their citizenship to their children. Under clause 3, most of the people will get the right of citizenship for their children. The few who will not, and who have a real relationship with Britain will be able to acquire citizenship for their children by bringing them back to Britain and registering them after three years.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that they already have the right of abode. That depends entirely on whether they can claim a grandpatrial or patrial connection with Britain. They may go beyond a grandpatrial connection. They may claim by lineal descent through a great-grandpatrial connection. In those circumstances, they would not necessarily be entitled to the right of abode. They may feel that they are British citizens because they can claim a passport. However, they would not be allowed to enter Britain because they would not be patrials under the 1971 Act.
  5 p.m.
  In future, if someone has a passport that says that he is a British citizen, the Bill ensures that he will be entitled to enter or leave Britain as he wishes, because he is a British citizen. That clarifies who comes within immigration law. If we muddy that clarification by a
  802
  system that gives citizenship to those who do not have the right of abode in Britain, there will be a serious danger of complicating what is already a too-complicated Bill.
  Sir David Price: I wish to narrow the argument a little in taking up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). I wish to raise with the Minister the special problems of nationality facing British Service men and their families. That problem is familiar to many hon. Members. Does the new clause, in conjunction with the amendments and clause 2, ensure that the children and grandchildren born to British Service men while overseas on Crown service receive British nationality as a right? I am not clear about that point. How far does the new clause put right some of the anomalies of the 1948 Act?
  Any hon. Member who has served in the House for some time will have dealt with examples of some' of the injustices arising from the 1948 Act. I wish to refer to two such cases with which I am currently dealing. The first case we shall call "Mr. X". For three generations his family have been British Service men, and in each generation the son has been born overseas. Before the 1948 Act there was no problem and such persons held British citizenship. However, since the 1948 Act the position has changed. "Mr. X" was born in South Africa because his father was serving there during the South African war—which gives some indication of his age. He has only South African nationality, although he has not lived his life there since his birth.
  Another, and more dramatic, case is that of "Mr. Y". He is a man aged 28 who has not held a passport since he became an adult. He had always been included on his parents' passport. He was born in Trieste, where his father was serving with the British Army.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The case of "Mr. Y" is on the front pages of today's newspapers.
  Sir David Price: The hon. Gentleman may have different standards from mine. My constituent did not give me permission to use his name. If he has spoken to the press, I accept that he is entitled to do so. I am afraid that I am rather old-fashioned in such matters. When a constituent brings his problems to me I always maintain confidentiality. It is an important case, and I shall refer to it as "Mr. Y". If "Mr. Y" cares to talk to the press that is his responsibility. I am not at liberty—and I do not regard any hon. Member to be so—to use an individual's name if he has not given me permission to do so. "Mr. Y" has not given me that permission. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will forgive me, but I am old-fashioned in these matters. I believe in courtesy.
  "Mr. Y's" father was serving with the British Army in Trieste when "Mr. Y" was born. He was registered at the consulate in Venice for what that is worth—apparently it is worth nothing. His father was a British citizen, but not of right because he was born in India, as his father was serving with the Indian Army. The grandfather was born in India because his father was serving with the Indian Army. Such cases are special. The law has been correctly applied by the authorities in relation to the 1948 Act.
  The Bill deals with the special position of those on Crown service. I ask the Minister whether the cases that I have quoted will be put right retrospectively. I believe that it is the will of the House and the British public that

  803
  they should be put right. They are separate from the wider-ranging cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield, who dealt with the generality of British subjects serving overseas. I refer to the particular case of those on Crown service. I am capable of reading into the new clause, in conjunction with clause 2, that the position will be put right, but I am not sure that that is an accurate reading. I want an assurance on that point. If my reading is not correct, I want an assurance that the matter will be put right in another place.
  Mr. David Steel: I am wholly in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, but why does he dwell on the distinction between those on Crown service—especially military service—and others? I have a parallel case of the daughter of a missionary in the former colony of Kenya. She is equally deserving of consideration.
  Sir David Price: I hope that I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me. It is important to get the wedge in first. I can see no argument that can be used against those on Crown service, because such people, having accepted service for the Crown—whether in the Armed Forces or the Foreign Office—have no choice but to go where they are sent.
  I accept that my reasoning applies to some extent to the missions and the private sector, but if we could at least establish a case for those on Crown service, having breached the wall there might be possibilities for widening the scope. The case for those on Crown service is irrefutable. I hope that the new clause covers that point. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I assume that the new clause does not cover that point. It is an important matter, and I ask him for an undertaking on that point. Many men of my age were temporary soldiers, sailors and airmen during World War Two or shortly after. We have retained a feeling of comradeship with those in the Forces. The most honourable title that I have ever held, or will ever hold, was that of Guardsman Price. Because of that I feel a special responsibility to see this matter put right.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Amendment No. 100, standing in my name, follows on from the argument now taking place. It arises not from the plight of soldiers or missionaries, but rather from that of academics.
  The proposed position is wrong for three reasons. First, it creates and extends the discriminatory system that the Bill creates between different citizens in Britain—a distinction between the rights that can be passed on by those born in Britain and the rights of those who are only the children of those born here. For example, if an academic is working abroad in a university and his child is born overseas, the rights of the second generation will depend entirely upon the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State. Such a case does not come under any of the exceptional cases set out in clause 3(2).
  That brings me to my second point. In this part of the Bill, as in many other parts, the present power of the Secretary of State is left without hindrance and without the right of appeal. That matter will be dealt with later in our discussions, but it also arises on this part of the Bill. The lack of appeal makes the present system unfair. That inequity is transferred forward by the proposal set out in clause 3.
  804
  Thirdly, the exceptional cases that would be excluded by my amendment are set out in the complex provisions from line 10 on page 3 to the end of the clause. The provisions are not clear. For example, paragraph (c) at line 24 says:
  "the nature or terms and conditions of that employment"—
  that is the employment that would qualify—
  "involved a close connection with the United Kingdom".
  That term is nowhere defined and is open to many different interpretations.
  If a citizen, or the child of a citizen who is born abroad, wishes to ascertain what to do to acquire either the rights that are in the subsection or to have the smile of approval upon his application from the Secretary of State, no guidance is given. The entire proposal is discriminatory and unclear. It enables the Secretary of State to make a decision without right of appeal. It is designed to deal with the present situation, of which I take a different view from that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
  I do not think that the present position does any harm. The number of people involved is small. Far more harm will be done by introducing the proposed change than by leaving matters as they are or making the changes set out in the amendment. The number of people involved, as I have said, is unlikely to be great but the principle is a main one.
  The entire Bill is discriminatory and the new clause will extend that discrimination. The powers of the Secretary of State are unfettered and that should be changed. The exceptions are unclear and should be clarified if they are to remain. Whether we are dealing with missionaries, soldiers or academics, the few people involved should be protected in a way that is not proposed in the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May I first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, raise a point of order? Will the Chair be prepared to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 89 on account of its many signatories and the fact that it raises an issue that is different in substance from the one raised by new clause 1? I do not know whether you can deal with the matter now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or whether it requires reference to a higher authority.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I shall be prepared to allow a Division if the amendment is moved at the appropriate time. Much depends on the progress of the debate.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I and the other signatories will be pleased to hear your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  New clause 1 is a mere extension of consular registration. Its extension for five years is irrelevant to the case for a concession to Britons by descent under the Bill. One of the few effects that the new clause will have if it is enacted is that more Britons will be born abroad under the impression that they may pass their citizenship on to their children born abroad, as of right. That is wrong. However, that will be the impression among those who, under the Bill, will become Britons by descent. But they will not be able to pass on their citizenship. Whether the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is correct about whose right is involved is debatable, but children who have been born abroad before the Bill is passed and who have had their births registered abroad should be entitled to pass their citizenship on to their children born abroad.
  z
  805
  The sense of injustice and grievance among those who become Britons by descent by virtue of registration will be increased rather than diminished by the new clause. Having heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I wonder whether he has understood the argument. I am sure that he has really but he was giving the impression that the new clause goes some way towards meeting the sense of grievance. If that is his view, I believe that he is wrong.
  Consular registration has been available to every citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born in a foreign country. The registration was by his father and had to be so under the existing law. The right of abode is a separate conception of the Immigration Act 1971 and could—in most instances—go with it. However, those whom we are discussing could confer full effective citizenship on their children as the law stands, because most of those who qualified for the right of abode obtained full citizenship.
  5.15 pm
  The effect of the Bill is to say that those people, Britons born abroad, are Britons by descent and, therefore, cannot confer any sort of British citizenship, not even citizenship by descent, on their children born abroad.
  I accept—I am sure that this is the view of the other signatories to amendment No. 89—the principle that there cannot be indefinite transmission of British citizenship under our new rationalised and modernised nationality law.
  When the hon. Member for York was speaking on this issue he referred to instances where consular registration has continued for generation after generation. He spoke of the lineage principle. He said towards the end of his remarks that only those who came within the definition of the right of abode—those closer in line—were entitled to full citizenship. Those in South America who may have been registered for generation after generation may now be entitled to call themselves citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but they are not entitled to full citizenshipand will not be so entitled after the Bill is enacted. They are not entitled now as of right to come to settle in the United Kingdom. In this amendment we are dealing only with those of this generation and of the generation before them who are entitled to be Britons by descent under the Bill.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would they be entitled to British citizenship under the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking? If so, that would widen the entitlement to British citizenship to those who do not have the right of abode now.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is true up to a point. I do not want to go into that rather refined argument.
  The amendment's aim is to perpetuate the present rights for those who are Britons by descent, who have been registered under consular registration, up to the time that the new Act comes into force. It is a strictly finite operation that is requested in the amendment. It is not one that seeks to transmit nationality indefinitely.
  New clause 1 will create more Britons by descent who will not have the right of conferring citizenship on their children. That is the basic objection, if one can call it that, to the new clause. We shall be perpetuating a class of people whose nationality arrangements are unsatisfactory.
  806
  I accept that consular registration applied only to births in foreign countries. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose children were born in the Colonies could not register their children. Nor could they do so if they were born in, for example, the Republic of Ireland. By definition the Republic is not a foreign country. The same situation applied if they were born in the Commonwealth. Again, they were not born in foreign countries and there was therefore no provision for consular registration.
  Under the present nationality law, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies goes automatically to children born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like. Children born to British people in the Commonwealth are entitled, because of that law, to the status of British subjects. Therefore, they are not cut off from the citizenship of their fathers.
  There may be many people who are citizens, for example of Australia, who were born there while their parents, who were born in this country, were visiting or staying there for some other reason. Those people remain citizens of Australia, but as such they are British subjects and entitled to all the rights which derive therefrom. The Bill will cut them all off, whether they were born in foreign countries, in the Colonies or in the independent countries of the Commonwealth. It cuts them all off because their father, being a Briton by descent, cannot by right confer his British status on his children born abroad. That may sound neat and logical, but it is immensely unfair to those who have the right of passing their citizenship on to their children at present.
  Is it a right in a father to be able to pass his citizenship to his son born abroad or is it the right of the son being born abroad to be British because his father was British by birth? Such an argument is irrelevant to the justice of the case. Either way, a right is being lost. It has been suggested that many people will benefit from the various arrangements made by other provisions of the Bill. Many of them will be entitled to British citizenship. Nevertheless, a number of people—perhaps a small number—will not be so entitled. That is a strong argument for dealing with the matter and not depriving them of the rights that they now have.
  I have had the honour of presenting to the House three petitions on this question which have been sent to the House of Commons from different parts of the world. One came from Caracas in Venezuela. About 67 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies living there asked that their children, being born in foreign countries, including Venezuela, should have the same right which their parents possess, namely to pass on their citizenship to their children.
  Another petition which I had the honour of presenting to the House came from Freetown in Sierra Leone and was signed by about 43 Britons resident in Freetown. Recently, another came from Brussels, Belgium, signed by about 91 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whose children, being born in Belgium to parents who were born in Belgium—or at least in a foreign country—would not become British citizens, not even by descent, under the Bill. A petition was delivered to the home of the Prime Minister about a week ago from the British community in Brussels, signed by more than 1,000 such people, asking that the Bill be amended to permit them to retain the right to pass on their citizenship to their children.

  807
  Other hon. Members may have received communications from persons affected in that way. I have had many letters from different parts of the world, including Korea and other remote places. I have also had letters from many employers of British people around the world, who, for one reason or another, believe that their children will become Britons by descent and therefore will not be able automatically as of right to pass on their citizenship to their children born abroad.
  The extra arrangements which my hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned will apply to the British community resident abroad. If those people come to this country for about three years with their children, they may register the children. They may do so if they are employed under certain conditions by British firms abroad, and also, through their mothers, they may have the right to transmit citizenship in future. Those arrangements are inadequate because in many cases, especially in the example of the three-year condition of residence, it may be impossible for the parents concerned, being employed abroad on a permanent basis, to give up their jobs to come to this country to live here for the necessary three years with those children.
  The justice of the argument calls for an amendment to the Bill, as it is conveyed, in intention at least, by amendment No. 89. The essence of the argument is perhaps best described in relation to another provision in the Bill which says that immigrant Britons—that is to say, people who, being born abroad, have come to this country and have become naturalised or registered as British citizens—can confer their British citizenship on their children born abroad. However, if the children of Britons of the indigenous community in the United Kingdom are born abroad, they cannot pass on their citizenship to their children. That is wrong and anomalous and does a great injustice to the British community around the world. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way to accepting amendment No. 89.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) let the cat out of the bag with his final few sentences. He repeated the point that he made many times in Committee, namely, that, in his view, those to whom he referred as ethnic Britons, irrespective of where they live, should not be treated any less fairly than those to whom he has just referred as immigrant Britons. The Minister of State, Home Office, who changed the Bill during our early sittings in Committee, must be rueing the day that he accepted the consequences of all the pressure that had been placed upon him and the Home Office to change the Bill as it stood before the Standing Committee so that people who were naturalised as Britons were able to confer citizenship as of right on their children. The hon. Gentleman came under a great deal of pressure from outside organisations and from Members of Parliament. Many of the problems that he has since faced from his own Back Benchers stem from that courageous decision that he took some months ago.
  Conservative Members are right when they say that there is much pressure from people in this country and abroad to try to ensure that the citizenship rights of their children or grandchildren are not impaired. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is correct when he says that if we are to define British citizenship in such a way that citizenship will mean the right of abode in this country, a point must come when there is a cut-off period
  808
  and people who are born abroad and live there for two or three generations do not have the right to call themselves British citizens or the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Orpington and others argue that consular registration should persist for a few—namely, first or second generation children born abroad—but not for all those who have previously had that right, such as the Welsh community in Argentina. It is wrong to argue that one group should have the right to pass on citizenship by descent to two generations and another should not.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the case. The argument is not that consular registration should continue. That is what the Government are proposing under new clause 1. Amendment No. 89 would allow those who have been registered at a British consulate up to the time of the passage of the Bill to pass their citizenship to their children. That is different from extending consular registration.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman does himself a great disservice by that argument. He reinforces my point. He argues that the present generation, who up to the enactment of the Bill will have the right to transfer United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to their children born abroad, should continue to have the right to pass on British Citizenship to their descendants.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I apologise if I have not clearly explained the purpose of the amendment. The intention is that such people should be able to pass their citizenship to their children, making them Britons by descent, but Britons by descent cannot pass their citizenship to future generations, so clearly there can be a finite solution without injustice to anyone.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman never accepts the word "finite", particularly with regard to immigration. His argument does not refute my point. The amendment would apply to all United Kingdom and Colonies citizens presently living abroad whose births were registered at a consulate. It would give them the right to transfer the new British citizenship to their children, who would be British citizens by descent. As the Bill stands, it would give them an automatic right of abode in the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Mr. Stanbrook: The question of right of abode is not at issue. We are discussing passing on citizenship. It has already been said that the right of abode is governed by the Immigration Act 1971. The matter should be judged in the light of that. It is suggested that Britons by descent, who are covered in this case, should be entitled to pass their citizenship to their children for one generation only.
  Mr. Marshall: I shall not pursue the point further. Amendment No. 89 would mean that all United Kingdom and Colonies citizens presently living abroad and whose births had been registered at a consulate could pass to the next generation the right of consular registration. If their children were registered, they would become 13ritish citizens, whether the parents were first or second generation United Kingdom and Colonies citizens born abroad or had been abroad for five or six generations.
  Mr. Stanbrook: No.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He accepts that the amendment would apply to all United Kingdom and Colonies citizens living abroad and registered at consulates, but he refuses to accept the conclusion to be drawn from that. Many people, such as the Welsh community in Argentina, many of whom are presently denied entry to the United Kingdom, would be eligible to become British citizens by descent and thus gain the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
  I am annoyed, because the amendment would apply only to a particular group, the vast majority of whom are white. The amendment seeks to protect the rights of ethnic Britons, those who the supporters of the amendment define as white—and I share that desire—but also to take away meaningful rights from ¼ million United Kingdom and Colonies citizens who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Under the Bill they will be given a meaningless form of citizenship—British overseas citizenship. Although I am sympathetic to the arguments for the group covered by the amendment, it is hypocritical to restrict the provisions to a favoured few.
  Finally, I seek guidance and information from the Minister of State. Under new clause 1, for a transitional period of five years the Home Secretary is prepared to say that a second generation child born abroad can become a British citizen by descent, with automatic right of abode in the United Kingdom. I presume that that is an attempt for the interim period to bring into line with the Bill people's rights under the Immigration Act 1971—namely, the right of entry and abode in the United Kingdom, either through a parent or a grandparent. At least for five years, the second generation born abroad will be able to be British citizens by descent.
  What changes are likely to be made in the Immigration Act to protect—if protection is to be continued—the rights of entry and abode of second generation children born in foreign or Commonwealth countries after the five years, when they will no longer be able to register as British citizens by descent, but presumably will still have the right of entry? At the end of the five-year period, will the immigration rules be altered to remove right of entry and abode, or does the Minister intend to continue second generation right of entry and abode, without automatic citizenship? It indicates a degree of ignorance on my part that I cannot work that out from the new clause as it stands, and I hope that the Minister will shed at least some light on this part of new clause 1.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I support the amendment because I believe that unless an amendment of this kind is accepted by the Government serious injustice may be done in the future to a number of citizens of this country who were born abroad, because the right which they now have will be first restricted and ultimately extinguished by the Bill.
  The aim of the amendment is simply to preserve the present right of fathers who are citizens of this country but who were born abroad to transmit their nationality to children who are born abroad. Unlike the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), I believe that this is a very valuable right. It attaches to the present generation and is a right which is understood, and valued, by the present generation.
  810
  I believe that it would be wrong for us to allow the retrospective effect of the Bill to destroy that right because it is wanted by many. To destroy it would be an unwanted and unnecessary effect.
  The present law is, of course, anomalous. As we know, if a child is born in a foreign country to a father who is a citizen of this country and who was himself born abroad, at present the child may be registered at a British consulate in that foreign country, thus ensuring that it acquires British nationality. If the same child were born in a Commonwealth country, however, the nationality of the child may be decided by the nationality laws of that Commonwealth country. The Bill removes that anomaly, for which we are all truly thankful. At the same time, however, it deprives fathers who are citizens of this country, born in this country, of the ability, once the Bill becomes law, to transmit their nationality to their children born abroad unless—if new clause 1 is accepted, as I hope it will be—the registration is carried out within five years.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Can my hon. and learned Friend give the approximate numbers of people who would be affected if the amendment were carried?
  Mr. Gardner: I tried to discover whether statistics were available, but I am afraid that I cannot give the number. All that I could find out—this seems to be agreed—is that it would be a comparatively small number. However, I am not greatly concerned about the number. I am moved by the principle, which I believe that the House should uphold.
  At present, the right is unqualified. A right qualified by a restriction of time under new clause 1, as it would be if the amendment were not accepted, is no longer the same as an unqualified right. It is something different.
  I object, as I believe many Conservative Back Benchers object, to retrospective consequences of this kind, because, as I have said, this is a valuable right. Indeed, it is so valuable that many of us would like it to be extended to children born in Commonwealth countries, but that would perhaps go a little too far and be a little too ambitious. They did not have the right before, and it would be hard to introduce it now.
  5.45 pm
  The other reason why there is such strong objection—I assure my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is strong—to the legislation as at present proposed is that it not only diminishes that right but promises ultimately, after five years, to extinguish it. I ask the Minister of State to understand, as I am sure that he does, from the number of names attached to the amendment and the number of names that were attracted to the early-day motion setting out the spirit of the amendment, that this is a serious objection felt by many people.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to argue—I should be surprised if he did not—that the amendment has a technical defect or defects. But there is nothing wrong with the principle behind it. I therefore beg him to assure the House that if he cannot accept the amendment in its present form the Government will undertake to use their ingenuity to produce an amendment without defects which will reflect the strong desire of many Conservative Members for an amendment to be made which will have the effect of amendment No. 89.
  Mr. John Tilley: New clause 1, to which we have no great objection, creates a series of hoops through which it is possible for some children born abroad to become British citizens and is clearly intended as an interim measure to reduce the immediate impact of the Bill. It is important to stress the series of inter-connecting hoops. First, the child must be born in a foreign country and not in a Commonwealth country. Next, the father must be a citizen by descent. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, all these conditions are cumulative. In addition, the father must be married to the mother, and the grandfather must have been born in the United Kingdom.
  A child must get through all those hoops to benefit from the clause, and this is just one of the many possible options for trying to obtain registration for children born abroad. Hon. Members who have studied the Bill will know that there are three or four possible methods of registration. All I wish to say on this clause is that I hope that Conservative Members who have shown great concern, which we share and acknowledge, for the Service men, missionaries and business men who are mainly affected by this part of the Bill, will show the same concern for all the other people who suffer inconvenience, injustice and worse under the later parts of the Bill.
  I turn even more briefly to amendment No. 89. We are not particularly keen on this, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), but we acknowledge that the hon. Members with their names to the amendment wish to vote upon it. Indeed, guidance was sought from Mr. Deputy Speaker, who said that it must be taken in its proper place. It is an amendment to clause 12. Under the guillotine motion, consideration of amendments up to the end of clause 12 must cease at 9 pm tomorrow. Clauses 1 to 12 involve a great deal of business, which many hon. Members will wish to debate. Therefore, it is very unlikely that Conservative Members will be able to move the amendment and to vote on it.
  In reply to the letters that have been cited, and in reply to those constituents who ask Conservative Members why they did not force a Division on the amendment, I hope that they will say that they could not, because on Tuesday 28 April they voted for a guillotine motion that they thought would gag only the Opposition. I hope that they will say that they now find that it has gagged them as well. In addition, I hope that they will send those letters and that they will send one copy to me and one to their local newspapers.
  Mr. Raison: The debate has focused more on my hon. Friend's amendment No. 89 than on the Government's new clause and Government amendment No. 24. I am inclined to take it, therefore, that there is fairly widespread agreement that the Government's proposals should be accepted. Therefore, I shall not waste hon. Members' time by covering that ground again. It seems widely understood that those proposals are right.
  It is proper to answer the points made about our proposals. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) seemed—if I understood him correctly—to interpret subsection (2)(a)(ii) as meaning that the marriage had to be subsisting at the time of the application for registration. But the marriage has only to be in force immediately before commencement, as the opening words of subsection (2)(a) make clear. That means that a divorce
  812
  following the child's birth would not affect the issue. A divorce effected after conception but before the birth would not affect the child's legitimacy. The child would be legitimate in those circumstances and would he able to acquire the father's citizenship.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps I could illustrate the difficulty. I am sorry if, by a slip of the tongue, I said "birth" when I should have said "commencement", in relation to line 16 of new clause 1. Let us take the case of two children who are born several years before commencement and who have both been consularly registered. In the one case there is a divorce between birth and commencement and in the other case there is not. It would seem to me that the new clause differentiates and discriminates against the child whose parents have been divorced between birth and commencement. I do not see the justification for that. It would seem to run counter to the point of view taken in Committee in other contexts, when a similar consideration arose.
  Mr. Raison: I am not sure if I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly. The provision concerns birth after commencement. Indeed, the first line of new clause 1 makes that clear. I do not see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  At one point, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said that I seemed to be indicating dissent. I was moving my head in the direction that is generally taken to show dissent, but that was because, although I respect the fact that he raised that point, it had nothing to do with the new clause under debate. There has been widespread concern about the position of children of Crown servants. One of the great blessings that the Bill will be seen to confer will be a substantial improvement in the position of children of Service men and other Crown servants. As has been said in many newspaper articles, letters to The Daily Telegraph and so on, the Bill cannot pick up retrospectively all the bits and pieces. We should pose enormous problems for ourselves if we were to try retrospectively to solve all the problems of descent and of those born overseas in years gone by who face difficulties as a result. We feel that we cannot go into that. Many complications can arise. For example, a person might be landed with the citizenship of a country that he did not wish to hold.
  One of the Bill's main ingredients is that it puts the children of Crown servants into the same position as those born here. If they are born overseas they will be effectively treated as if they had been born here. That is a great advance. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to a case of a gentleman he called "Mr. Y'. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, not inaccurately—I think that we are talking about the same case—that the case featured prominently in today's edition of The Guardian and that the name was given. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard it as a breach of confidence if I call the gentleman Mr. Breese, as that is apparently his name——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister do me the favour of not turning his back on the Chair all the time? It is discourteous and happens too often.
  Mr. Raison: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise.
  Mr. Breese was born in Trieste. His father was a British subject without citizenship and could not transmit that

  813
  status to his son—it can only be held by people born before 1949. He could not derive citizenship from his mother, since citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies descends in the male line only at present.
  Mr. Breese has apparently lived all his life in this country. Had the situation come to light at an earlier point—as normally one would have expected it to do—it would no doubt have been appropriate to register him under the Home Secretary's power to register any minor child. That important power is retained in the Bill. Mr. Breese is now 28 and the Home Secretary has no discretionary power to register any adult. Mr. Breese must therefore apply for naturalisation. In the special circumstances of his case, we should be prepared, exceptionally, to give his application every priority.
  Occasional cases of this sort do come to light from time to time. This one is in fact a result of the 1948 legislation. Even under that legislation the situation could be rectified before the child reached majority. As I said, the Bill would in fact greatly reduce the chances of such a case occurring again, because under clause 2 mothers can transmit citizenship. While, therefore, I sympathise with Mr. Breese in his predicament, I cannot accept that the rather exceptional circumstances of his case mean that there is anything inherently wrong in the descent provisions of the Bill. Rather the reverse is true, since, as I have said, the chances of a recurrence in future will be greatly diminished by the Bill's provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied by that.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With the hon. Gentleman's permission, I shall interrupt him again if this is a convenient moment. In reply to my earlier question, he said that the clause applied only to those born after commencement. If the hon. Gentleman reads the first line of the new clause he will see that it does not, in terms, do that. I appreciate that line 7 has a retrospective implication. With great respect, I wonder whether the clause is so drawn as to make it clear that it applies only to those born after commencement, although within five years of it. Will the Minister take that into consideration?
  Mr. Raison: I shall think about the right hon. Gentleman's point. The new clause begins:
  "A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement,"
  I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall look into it. If there is some dubiety about it, we shall no doubt be able to find an opportunity to tackle it.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South raised a point that does not involve amendment No. 89. The new clause affects the right of abode in the following way. It ensures that if a child, on registration, would have the right of abode now, it would have it if registered on application during the five-year transitional period. No one would acquire the right of abode who could not acquire it if he had been born and registered at the consulate before commencement. As the hon. Member knows, we shall be looking in due course at the implications for the immigration rules of the Bill's provisions as a whole. As I said several times in Committee, I do not think that I can go further than that at this stage.
  6 pm
  I listened with great care to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates),
  814
  Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). I know that the topic has aroused considerable strength of feeling. I do not wish in any way to belittle the importance of the matter for those of our citizens by descent living overseas and anxious about their and their children's future. Nevertheless, I must put to my hon. Friends certain arguments on the matter which should, in my view, give them cause to reflect seriously before they seek to press the amendment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield anticipated, there is a technical flaw in the amendment. I do not want to build that up into something of great importance, but the amendment does not achieve its purpose, for although it would mean that citizens by consular registration were not citizens by descent under clause 12(1)(b)(i), they would still be citizens under clause 12(1)(b)(iii). That is because to become British citizens at all they must have had the right of abode under section 2(1)(b) of the 1971 Act. It is a deficiency which invalidates the amendment.
  The main point that I have to put to my hon. Friends is that the amendment would create a major anomaly. The second generation born in foreign countries whose births were registered would become British citizens by birth, while the first generation born in foreign countries would be citizens by descent. I shall deal with that in a few minutes in rather more detail. The force of the point is that those whose connection was less strong would get the higher status, if I may put it in that way. That must be seen as being most unsatisfactory, whatever the objectives of the whole exercise.
  I should perhaps make clear to the House that the primary purpose of consular registration is not to confer our citizenship on the children whose births are registered. The main purpose of providing facilities for the registration of births overseas is to enable the records so collected to form part of the comprehensive births, marriages and deaths records of the General Register Office in the United Kingdom. For this purpose, facilities for registering births are provided in every foreign country and in all Commonwealth countries except Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Zimbabwe.
  There is no requirement on our citizens overseas to register the births of their children born abroad, but a great many do so because they may wish to have access to the birth record at a later date through United Kingdom sources, if possible. The registration of the birth in this way has no nationality implications in a Commonwealth country. In foreign countries, the vast majority of birth registrations probably carry no nationality implications either. Children born overseas to fathers born here are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, whether or not their births are registered at the nearest consulate. Only where the father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent does consular registration serve to transmit citizenship to the child of a further generation. In other words, the consular registration leads to citizenship being passed on only if the father was born abroad.
  The amendment would not, therefore, make all those persons consularly registered citizens as if by birth but the numbers concerned would be relevant. I was asked about that and will say a word about it.
  Since 1949—that is, during the lifetime of the 1948 Act—over 250,000 people have had their births registered at consulates in foreign countries. We have no means of

  815
  saying precisely how many of these became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent under section 5(1)(b) of the 1948 Act following their registration. Some research has been done, however, on the registrations for 1978. It revealed that about 730 —or just over 5 per cent. of the total for that year of 13,000—acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a direct result of their registration.
  If the 5 per cent. held good for other years—and we have no means of knowing whether it did or not—we would have a figure of 12,500 children who have acquired citizenship by consular registration under the 1948 Act so far. I would, however, remind the House that consular registration was introduced as long ago as 1914. I appreciate that the amendment covers only those who were registered under the 1948 Act. It might, however, be thought anomalous to exclude those who owe their citizenship to registration under earlier legislation. Many more would need to be added to the total of 12,500 if this were felt necessary.
  I would, however, like to go back to the overall figures of consular registration since 1949. The figure of 250,000 clearly includes a great many people, perhaps as much as 95 per cent., born overseas and who did not need to be registered at a consulate in order to become citizens by descent. They presumably became such citizens automatically at birth because their fathers were born here. Those who needed consular registration, by contrast, were children whose fathers, and in some cases grandfathers or more remote male ancestors, were born overseas.
  It is, therefore, a striking anomaly that would be created if the amendment were passed. Citizens by descent who were born to fathers born in this country would remain citizens by descent. Citizens by descent who were born to fathers themselves born overseas would be turned into citizens by birth. Sometimes, as I say, the link through ancestry could be as remote as a grandparent. It would not be more remote than that, since otherwise the child concerned would not have the right of abode. But the effect where the link was through a grandparent would be to extend the right of abode to the third generation born overseas instead of the second, as at present.
  This does seem very unfair on the children born overseas to fathers born here. Yet, as I have indicated, their numbers are very substantial. It is difficult to see a way round the anomaly. If one extended my hon. Friend's amendment to cover all citizens by descent, large numbers of citizens by birth would be created, and many of them would not have close connections with the United Kingdom.
  I therefore invite the House to consider whether it is really necessary or desirable to single out those registered at consulates in foreign countries for this anomalous treatment. I remind the House that the Bill makes generous provision for descent. I have already mentioned those provisions in detail. The extension to women of the right to transmit overseas will obviate the need for the amendment in a good many cases. Similarly, the broadened provisions for registrations on grounds of overseas employment will help in other cases. These are contained in the amendments to clause 3 which the House will be considering.
  I mention the provision in clause 3(5) for the entitlement to registration of a child of a British citizen where that child lives with his parents here for three years.
  816
  Ample provision is made for the child born overseas to citizens by descent who retain a close connection with this country.
  I have said already that I take seriously the arguments of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I have been endeavouring to follow my hon. Friend's arguments against the present wording of amendment No. 89. Would it be possible to find suitable wording which restricted the passing of citizenship in cases such as this to one generation only, so that instead of creating Britons by birth we would be creating only Britons by descent, so that there would be only one generation involved? That would not have the consequences that my hon. Friend says amendment No. 89 would have. If it is possible to do that by the appropriate wording, surely it should be done, because the spirit of the amendment argues for itself.
  Mr. Raison: I have said already that it is difficult to get round the problem that we have to face. I suppose that it might be possible to meet the point, but there is the problem that I have tried to illustrate of the disparity between those whose parents were born here and those whose parents were born overseas. I have not found an amendment that would satisfy my hon. Friends. That is partly because I believe that what we are putting forward in the Bill meets the problem. I am not, therefore, persuaded that we ought to do something else.
  I should like to expand my arguments on the point. As I was saying when my hon. Friend intervened, I take the argument seriously, as, I am sure, does the House as a whole. It was to meet that argument that new clauses 1 and 2 were introduced, together with amendment No. 40. They would preserve this aspect of the scheme of consular registration for a further five years from commencement. But I do not believe that it is a denial of rights to provide, as the Bill does, that British citizens who were before commencement citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent should be British citizens by descent. Perhaps more important, I do not think that it is retrospective legislation to affect the possible citizenship claims of children who are as yet unborn.
  The pattern that we have adopted in the Bill is to extend existing rights but not to keep them for ever. Therefore, what we are doing is not out of line with the general philosophy of the Bill. What we are trying to do is to move towards a rational and coherent system. Both in the case of Commonwealth people with an entitlement to register, who are no part of this debate, and in the important case that we are discussing in this debate, we recognise that there are current expectations, but we have taken the view that if we defer almost indefinitely moving fully towards the scheme that we believe to be the right scheme then in many ways, although we are not wasting our time, we are putting off the day when we can come up with the kind of structure which is the right one for citizenship of this country.
  Sir Albert Costain: Could my hon. Friend clear up one point? Is it not a fact that if a third-generation mother came to this country for the birth of her child, that child would still be British by birth? If so, are we not giving nationality to those who can afford the air fare?
  Mr. Raison: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that it is like that. There are problems about

  817
  achieving nationality through paying an air fare in that airlines are not always keen about taking pregnant women on board.
  Leaving that on one side, the purpose of the provision by which a person comes back here for three years is that he is establishing the kind of close connection that we are looking for all the time. A three-year period of residence is stronger evidence that a person is closely connected with the country and has an entitlement to citizenship than is the fact that he had ancestors who were citizens but that he nevertheless decided to make his life overseas.
  There are many different provisions by which those who make their lives overseas but retain close connections with this country, particularly through employment, can get back on board. We have to draw a line on the total passing on of citizenship by descent. In regard to this group of people, the extension for another five years after commencement, which in reality means more than five years from now, gives them a fair chance to make use of the existing system.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: What my hon. Friend is saying is that if a father has a child within the five years he will have the right to transmit, but if he has a child after the five years that right will no longer be available to him. Does that seem right to my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Raison: We are saying that the system that exists cannot continue indefinitely. I cannot quarrel with my hon. and learned Friend about that. I have tried to make the point that we think that there is a scheme that is ultimately the right one. I do not think that that has been disputed by the House as a whole, which accepts our long-term objective. The argument is about the transitional period, and only about people who are overseas before commencement. Even at that it is not an indefinite transition.
  In the Bill we have generally taken the view that the transitional period should be limited rather than indefinite. That remains our view. At the very least I hope that my hon. Friends will see that their amendment would produce substantial anomalies by the arbitrary way in which citizens by descent whose fathers were born abroad would be made citizens by birth, while those whose parents were born here would be citizens by descent. I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their amendment, because its deficiencies are obvious. As they think about the matter I hope that they will see that we are right to move after what is a reasonable concession in regard to the transitional period towards the scheme that is recognised on all sides of the House to be the right one.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Mates: I am grateful to the House for letting me speak again. Naturally I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not felt able to accept the spirit of my amendment. Let me say straight away that I accept the technical flaw that he alleges exists. I am not sure that I accept that it means that he could not agree to the inclusion of my amendment; from what he said, a further amendment would be needed to another part of the Bill. For that reason I am not inclined to ask leave to withdraw it.
  Secondly, I want it to be clear what it is that I am seeking. It is not related to the five-year extension, which
  818
  is a different point. Perhaps I have not made it clear up to now. I will try once again, because this must have been my failure. I accept that anomalies would be created if this amendment were accepted, but the point is that what the Bill, as drafted, will do is to take away retrospectively rights that people had and people thought they had. That is what people are upset about. To make it crystal clear, I should like to express it in personal terms.
  I went overseas 20-odd years ago, in Crown service. Three of my children were born in Germany. They were registered at the British consulate—two in Hanover and one in Dusseldorf. At the time I was quite clear that by the actions that I was taking I was handing on my British citizenship—my citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies—to my children. That consular registration was a conscious act. Of course, it has been picked up entirely in the Bill because I was in Crown service. The Government are absolutely right, and I congratulate them on having made this blanket coverage for all those who were in the service of the Crown.
  Let us suppose that I had had a twin brother; that instead of going into the Services he had gone into business or industry; that he had come with his wife to Germany at the same time as I did; that his children were born in Germany; that he and I had gone along together to the British consulate, stood in the queue and registered respectively our children. He would have thought that he was doing precisely what I thought I was doing. He would have thought that by doing that he was ensuring for his children the right to be British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as they were then, and he would have gone away as happy as I was, whereas now, under the Bill, his children would be becoming British citizens only by descent.
  That is where I argue with my hon. Friend. It is not about what may happen in the future. It is not about the transitional arrangements, correct and admirable as they are. This is a right that, whether or not we had it, we believed that we had it in both cases, one real and the other hypothetical. But many people have written to me who did just as I did all those years ago. They are deeply concerned. They felt that they were enshrining rights in their children, just as I enshrined rights in my children. Their children are not going to have those rights.
  Unless we change it, the Bill will take away from such a child that right, so that he is a British citizen only by descent and he cannot, unless there are other factors that pick him up, transmit his citizenship to his children, whereas my children can, and can continue to do so as a right. That is not fair. That is the thing that I passionately ask the Government to agree to look at again. It cannot be right, although I agree with the Minister that many of these cases will be picked up.
  Many people will have had mothers who were born in this country, and we have given them the right to transmit. Others will have come back here, lived here, and become qualified in other ways. Others can go through the process of registration, but in principle they should not have to. We should not be taking away from them a right they had at the time that they were born—a right that they will have until 1 January next year. Yet, by the chance that one is in Crown service and the other is not, that right is taken away. That is my fundamental objection. I beg the Minister most earnestly to say that he will look at the matter again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  RIGHT TO REGISTRATION AS CITIZEN OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES BY VIRTUE OF FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP ETC.
  `A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories made within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied—

  (a) that the requirements referred to in subsection (1)(a) of section (Right to registration as British citizen by virtue of father's citizenship etc.) are fulfilled in the case of that person's father, subsection (2)(b) of that section being for the purposes of this paragraph read as if any reference to becoming or remaining a British citizen were a reference to becoming or, as the case may be, remaining a citizen of the British Dependent Territories; and

  (b) that if that person had been born before commencement and had become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section, he would at commencement have become a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of section 20(1)(b).'.—[Mr. Luce.]

  Brought up, and read the first time.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 37.
  Mr. Luce: The principle of the new clause was discussed in the context of new clause 1, which made provision for the circumstances in which the continuation of a registration system akin to consular registration should lead to British citizenship. The clause sets out the circumstances in which a parallel registration entitlement would, if exercised, lead to the child becoming a citizen of the British dependent territories.
  The clause applies to any person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement, provided that application is made within 12 months of the birth. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the child's father meets certain requirements. The first is that the child's father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement or would have done so but for his death. He must also have remained a citizen of the British dependent territories throughout the period from commencement to the date of application unless he died first.
  The Secretary of State must further be satisfied that the child's father was married to the child's mother immediately before commencement and was ordinarily resident in a foreign country at that time.
  The final requirement is that the child, had he been consularly registered before commencement, would have become a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement by virtue of the provisions of clause 20(1)(b). That paragraph sets out the connections with a dependent territory through a parent or grandparent by virtue of which a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies would become on commencement a citizen of the British dependent territories.
  820
  I hope that the House will accept, for the same reasons that it accepted new clause 1, that it is reasonable to allow a process equivalent to consular registration to operate for a further five years from commencement in these cases. The clause does no more than preserve, for future citizens of the British dependent territories, the same possibility as they have now of securing citizenship for their children on consular registration. The only difference is that the result of the registration would be that the children became citizens of the British dependent territories by descent instead of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent.
  Amendment No. 37 is merely consequential, to insert a reference to the new clause in clause 22, which defines who will become citizens of British dependent territories by descent. I commend the clause to the House.
  Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I accept that the machinery provided here is necessary as a complement to the new clause that we have just passed, but it raises once again the question of the nature of citizenship of British dependent territories; that is to say, whether it is a single citizenship or whether it is 20 or so different citizenships, as described in schedule 6. When the United Kingdom Secretary of State registers someone who qualifies under the clause, does he register him as a citizen generally of British dependent territories, or as a citizen, say, of the Turks and Caicos Islands, as opposed to a citizen of the Virgin Islands?
  The importance of this is that if he registers such a person in general terms as a citizen of British dependent territories, in spite of what has been said in previous proceedings on the Bill, my belief is that in international law if such a citizen gets into grave trouble a third country could deport him to any one of the 20 or so dependent territories listed in schedule 6.
  If I am wrong about that, and if it is the intention of the United Kingdom Secretary of State that the citizen shall be restricted to one or other of those islands or dependencies in circumstances such as I have mentioned, is my hon. Friend satisfied that that is in accordance with the practices of international law, and that third countries would be wrong and illegal if they sent such a malefactor back to a dependent territory different from the one in which he is registered by the United Kingdom Secretary of State? It gives the United Kingdom Secretary of State the remarkable power of being able to allot to any one of those 20 or so islands exclusive rights of the person concerned. It looks far more like an independent citizenship than a single citizenship. Are not the Government seeking to have it both ways?
  Mr. Luce: I suspect that this question marginally comes within the terms of reference of the clause. The whole question of composite citizenship for British dependent territories is a matter that we decided to introduce after a great deal of debate. The Green Paper did not recommend that, but we decided to introduce composite citizenship because we felt that dependent territories were in a special relationship with the United Kingdom and that it was right and proper to introduce a third type of citizenship, which is composite and applies to all the territories.
  As my hon. and learned Friend implied, dependent territories have their own immigration ordinances and immigration rules. We have been in touch with all the

  821
  governors of these territories, and the objective is that these territories, with one major exception, should bring their ordinances into line with the general criteria on citizenship, so that immigration rules and citizenship laws should as far as possible be brought into line.
  The Secretary of State's power can be delegated to the governor, so that governors in various dependencies will be able to deal with the problem of registration. I have no evidence to support the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend that there is here a breach of international law. If he wants a more detailed assessment of our obligations, in international law, to these dependencies and third countries, I shall be pleased to give him more details later on.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This matter was not argued in Committee, and I should be interested in the answer.
  Each colony will have its individual ordinances, but what is the position of a citizen of a dependent territory deported from France whose normal place of abode is the Turks and Caicos Islands and who is returned to Hong Kong? Is he to be admitted by Hong Kong in those circumstances because in international law it is part of the citizenship of dependent territories?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Luce: I hesitate to give a detailed answer when talking about international law and obligations. Obviously, I must get my facts right, and I have already assured my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that I will clarify the matter.
  Under international law we have obligations to look after the interests of citizens of British dependent territories in relation to third countries. I cannot say how we would deal with the question of deportation, but I will write to my hon. and learned friend and to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). We have important obligations and they are not weakened by the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

  REGISTRATION AND NATURALISATION UNDER BRITISH NATIONALITY ACTS I948 TO I965.
  `(1) After the passing of this Act—

  (a) a person shall not be registered under any provision of the existing nationality Acts as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject; and

  (b) a certificate of naturalisation shall not be granted to a person under any provision of those Acts,

  unless—

  (i) any fee payable by virtue of those Acts in connection with the registration or, as the case may be, the grant of the certificate has been paid; and

  (ii) where applicable, the person in question has taken the oath of allegiance which, but for this section, he would have been required by those Acts to take in connection with the registration or as the case may be, the grant to him of the certificate.

  (2) Any provision of the existing nationality Acts which provides for a person to be entitled to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject shall have effect subject to subsection (1).
  (3) A person registered after the passing of this Act under any provision of the existing nationality Acts as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject shall be such
  822
  a citizen by registration or, as the case may be, a British subject by virtue of that provision as from the date on which he is so registered; and a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation is after the passing of this Act granted under any such provision shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by naturalisation as from the date on which the certificate is granted.
  (4) The following provisions of the existing nationality Acts, namely—

  (a) in the 1948 Act, section 9 and, in section 10(1), the words from "and the person" onwards; and

  (b) section 1(2) of the British Nationality Act 1965,

  shall not apply in relation to any application for registration or for a certificate of naturalisation under any provision of the existing nationality Acts, whenever made, unless the person to whom that application relates has been registered or, as the case may be, granted such a certificate before the passing of this Act.
  (5) In this section "the existing nationality Acts" means the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965.'—[Mr. Raison.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 58 to 61 and. 63 to 65.
  Mr. Raison: Taken with the various consequential amendments to clause 49 and schedules 8 and 9, the new clause seeks to simplify the current procedures for registration and naturalisation and will help to reduce some of the delays in dealing with applications for citizenship. It is envisaged that, unlike the other provisions of the Bill, these measures will come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will, therefore, have an immediate impact and are framed in terms of alterations to the current nationality legislation.
  The problem that the amendments seek to relieve is that, under present law, once a decision has been made to grant, for example, a certificate of naturalisation, it is necessary to write to the applicant on three separate occasions.
  First, the applicant is asked to check the details that are to appear on his certificate of naturalisation, such as his name. He is also asked to send in his fee. The certificate is made out and signed on behalf of the Home Secretary. The applicant is approached a second time and asked to take the oath of allegiance before a solicitor or other authorised person. The oath of allegiance for applicants for naturalisation is printed on the back of the naturalisation certificate. The applicant returns that to the Home Office. His certificate is duly sealed, and the Home Office writes to him for the third and final time, with the certificate of naturalisation. He is a naturalised citizen from the time his certificate is signed, but that is conditional on his taking the oath of allegiance. Broadly similar procedures apply with most applicants for citizenship by registration. There is no discretion to simplify those procedures under existing legislation.
  It would greatly help the flow of work if the second stage of the process—the request to the applicant to take the oath of allegiance—could be included in the first stage. Applicants could then be asked in one letter to check the details to appear on their certificate, send the fee and take the oath of allegiance. A time-taking stage in the process of naturalisation would be eliminated. That would simplify matters for the applicant, would save staff time and effort and would reduce some delays.
  Under clause 39 we propose to adopt that system when the Bill comes into force, but it may be some little time before the Bill comes into force, since much preparation

  823
  has to be done. In the meantime, the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1948, as amended, will apply, and in their present form those do not permit any simplification of existing procedures. We think, however, that we ought not to wait until then before moving over to the new system for oaths of allegiance. There would be considerable advantage, we believe, in eliminating the second stage from the process of issuing certificates of naturalisation and registration as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  Accordingly, we propose that, as from Royal Assent, the arrangements for acquiring citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by naturalisation and registration should be simplified in the way that I have described. As from then, we propose that applicants should pay the fee and take the oath of allegiance before they are naturalised or registered. Their naturalisation or registration will take effect, as at present, from the time that the registration is made or the certificate of naturalisation is granted, but it will no longer be dependent on their subsequently taking the oath of allegiance where that is required.
  Anyone who has been granted naturalisation or registered before Royal Assent but has not then taken the oath of allegiance will still, in appropriate cases, have to do so, as a condition of naturalisation or registration, but thereafter the normal procedure will be that the applicant will be asked to take the oath of allegiance before he or she is naturalised or registered and will be asked to return the oath, duly attested, with the appropriate fee before the certificate of naturalisation is signed or the registration made.
  We believe that the change will yield significant improvements in the processing of applications for naturalisation or registration, once those have been decided. In our view the improvements ought not to be delayed till the Bill as a whole comes into force, but should take effect as soon as it receives Royal Assent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

  RIGHT OF APPEAL
  `(1) In any case arising under this Act where a person is refused a certificate of naturalisation as a British Citizen or, as a Citizen of the British Dependent Territories, or where an application for registration as a British Citizen or, as the case may be, as a Citizen of the British Dependent Territories or as a British Overseas Citizen is refused, an appeal shall lie against the decision of the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, of the Lieutenant-Governor or the Governor, to the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal established in accordance with the provisions of this section.
  (2) For the purpose of hearing appeals under this Act, there shall be established a tribunal to be known as the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal.
  (3) The Citizenship Appeal Tribunal shall consist of:

  (a) such number of judges as may be nominated from time to time by the Lord Chancellor from among the judges (other than the Lord Chancellor) of the High Court and the Court of Appeal;

  (b) at least one judge of the Court of Session nominated from time to time by the Lord President of that Court; and

  (c) such number of other members as may be appointed from time to time by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

  (4) The Lord Chancellor shall, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, appoint one of the judges nominated under subsection (2) above to be President of the Appeal Tribunal.
  (5) No judge shall be nominated a member of the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal except with his consent.
  (6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provisions for the membership, sittings, proceedings and powers of the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal..—[Mr. Hattersley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
  The object of the new clause is to provide an appeals system by which applicants for British citizenship by registration or naturalisation may, if their application is refused, contest that refusal.
  In some ways the debate on the new clause typifies the divide between the Government and the Opposition over the entire Bill—a divide that can be more dramatically exemplified on other issues, but will certainly appear in the debate on the new clause, not least because the Opposition believe that a candidate for British citizenship who fulfills the requirements laid down by Parliament should have an automatic right to obtain that status.
  In Committee, Conservative Members and the Minister of State explicitly described British citizenship by registration or naturalisation as a privilege which, as a matter of principle as well as a matter of, according to them, necessary administrative practice, should be withheld by the Home Secretary if he chose to use his discretion against the applicant.
  I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would be here to entertain the House with his views on the subject, but unfortunately he is not with us. He said that his view, which he admitted was mystical rather than logical, was that possession by the Home Secretary of the right to reject an applicant for British citizenship, for whatever reason he chose—no matter how capricious, arbitrary or unrelated to the criteria laid down in the Bill—was a necessary condition of the statehood and nationhood of the United Kingdom.
  In other words, unless the Home Secretary possessed the power, on behalf of the United Kingdom corporately and collectively, to dismiss an application for reasons that he need not justify, and perhaps could not explain, British nationhood would be undermined. I do not suggest that that bizarre notion was commonly held by Conservative Members, but I can demonstrate by reference to Hansard of the Committee proceedings that the Government's view was that the right to withhold citizenship should be retained in the person of the Home Secretary.
  I accept that Parliament has a right, indeed a duty, to stipulate which individuals who are not born within the United Kingdom are entitled subsequently to become United Kingdom citizens.
  I believe also that there must be a clear definition of what qualifies such individuals for naturalisation or registration. Men and women who fulfil the requirements stipulated by the House should have the automatic right to citizenship. Equally important, applicants who believe that they fulfil the criteria and are entitled to citizenship according to the conditions stipulated by the House, but who are nevertheless refused an application for that status, should first be told in clear and unequivocal terms why their application has been refused. Then, if they contest the facts behind the refusal and the judgment that brought

  825
  it about, they should have the right to appeal against the decision that deprived them of the status for which they asked.
  The right to appeal as proposed in the new clause is linked inextricably with the right of an applicant to know why his initial application has been turned down. If an applicant is not told what prevented his application for citizenship from succeeding, he cannot make an appeal either on fact or judgment. The Opposition argued in Committee that more precise criteria determining what did or did not justify a man—or woman—in his application to become British should be incorporated in the Bill. We failed in our attempts to include objective criteria for the granting of citizenship.
  Schedule 1 to the Bill contains criteria of a sort, stipulating general conditions that have to be fulfilled if a man or woman is to become British—a residence qualification, a period of good conduct, a character in some way beyond reproach and a working knowledge of the English language. I have to tell the House that the implementation and interpretation of those criteria are open to a great deal of argument and judgment. The most subjective requirement of all is that an applicant should be of good conduct, of good character and above reproach. The Opposition argued in Committee that that, too, could be specified in a clear and objective manner. A man or woman who had not committed any one of a list of specified offences would, in our opinion, be someone who could claim to be of good conduct that justified the application of British citizenship.
  The Government prefer to keep these things more general. In doing so they provide substantial risks for the applicant, particularly in relation to the good conduct requirement. The Minister of State described in Committee how the good conduct requirement is interpreted in the Home Office. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read some of the things that he said, assuring you that I am not reading from the works of Beachcomber, but giving you a recital of the work of some Assistant Secretary in the Home Office, which the Minister of State read faithfully to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "Perhaps I might give some indication of how the good character requirement is currently interpreted."
  He gave some indication before going on to say:
  "Sexual morality, however, is not normally taken into account, nor are, for instance, homosexual activities within the law. Scandalous sexual misbehaviour might, however, when combined with other personal characteristics, be a factor in a very few cases".
  In case that definition of immorality and unacceptable conduct was not sufficiently vacuous, he went on:
  "Financial irresponsibility, serious insolvency or bankruptcy invariably leads to refusal. But mere financial incompetence is not necessarily a bar, and neither is unemployment or receipt of social security benefits."
  6.45 pm
  The passage improves in a humurous sense as it goes along, concluding with this definition of what makes a man or woman suitable for British citizenship:
  "Defects of temperament on their own are not normally held to bar an applicant on grounds of character. Heavy drinking, gambling or a disinclination to work are not in themselves sufficient to warrant refusal. There comes a point in a very few cases, however, where failings of this type become so
  826
  pronounced, or notorious in the locality, that it would be unwise to grant naturalisation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 March 1981, c. 692.]
  I have read those paragraphs, not in order to reflect on the Minister's attitude to these matters, but to demonstrate the subjectivity of the rules that govern a man's or a woman's application for citizenship. A man or a woman may be denied British citizenship if it comes to the point where failings are so pronounced or notorious in the locality that it would be unwise to grant naturalisation. That single sentence contains three or four subjective judgments, none of which the applicant is allowed to test or to appeal against, and none of which will be made known to the applicant if used as a reason for denying the status of British citizenship.
  It seems wrong that a man or a woman who, according to the Bill, and according to the schedule to the Bill, is entitled to be British, should be prevented from being British by rules that are, and are clearly interpreted in a way that is, so arbitrary, so subjective and, I must use the word again, so vacuous. In our view, the judgments should be made in a way that can be challenged, in that they are described in material and practical terms, and, secondly a challenge should be possible. There is no way in which a challenge to a refusal of British citizenship can be mounted under he Bill as it stands.
  Clause 41(1), as amended in Committee, contains a welcome addition. It is an amendment that the Opposition wholly applaud. It improves substantially both the character and tone of the Bill. Clause 41(1) requires the Secretary of State, a governor or a lieutenant-governor, when deciding whether a man or a woman can become British, or may be prevented from becoming British, to make his judgment with a mind wholly unclouded by racial, religious or other prejudicial, in terms of race, colour and creed, qualifications. That is good. It is an admirable addition to the Bill. However, as I said in Committee, the fact that the Minister, properly and admirably, added the amendment disqualifying the Secretary of State from making a judgment about citizenship that was prejudiced according to race or colour is a dramatic demonstration of the wide discretion of the Secretary of State. That is the only limitation placed upon the exercise of his judgment.
  Clause 41(2), as amended, says:
  "The Secretary of State, a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor…shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application under this Act the decision on which is at his discretion",
  and it goes on to say that any such decision to grant or deny citizenship
  "shall not be subject to appeal to, or review in, any court."
  The fact that the Secretary of State has that enormous power over the future prospects, prosperity and happiness of a man or woman, and the fact that the Bill does not require him to justify his decision, which cannot be checked, examined or challenged in any court, seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. It is wrong in itself. A crucial decision about the future of a man or a woman, and therefore about the future of the family of that man or woman, should be taken in a way that does not deny the man or the woman knowledge of the reasons why the decision has gone against him or her and the right to argue about the facts on which the decision was based.
  I should like to remind the House of what happens in practice in the real world of applications for British citizenship. A man or a woman believes that he or she is

  827
  entitled to British citizenship under what will now, if the Bill becomes law, be the terms of schedule 1 to the Act. Let me give an example. I take only two or three of the qualifications. A man—and this applies also to a woman—believes that he is of good character. He knows that he has lived in the United Kingdom for the requisite period. He believes himself to have sufficient knowledge of the Welsh or English language. He does not know how good character is defined. He can read the Minister of State's speech, but that will not give him a precise definition, and he can look at the schedule, which describes good character in general terms. Nor does he know the level of English—or, for that matter, Welsh—that he needs to qualify for British citizenship. All that he knows is that somehow he must achieve a status and a quality of performance which is not described for him, but which the Minister or the Minister's representative will judge.
  Many applications are turned down. When that happens the applicants receive a circular letter telling them that it is not the practice of the Home Secretary or the Home Office to say why the application has been refused. I am not the first Member of Parliament to stand on the rights and privileges that we have, but it is worth considering that when we are asked by an unsuccessful applicant to pursue the case with the Home Office we are given the same reply, namely, that it is not the practice of the Home Secretary to reveal the reasons why an application for British citizenship has been rejected.
  This potentially disastrous news is received in a way that makes it almost impossible for the individual to accommodate the disadvantages that the Home Secretary has found in him. The applicant will know—or think that he knows—whether he has lived here for five years, but he has no idea of the standard of English that is required. In practice it involves a subjective judgment by the police officer who visits the applicant at his home and decides whether the person is able to carry on an adequate conversation in English.
  The applicant will not know how moral failings may have affected the application—whether those failings are so pronounced and notorious in his locality that it would be unwise to grant him nationality. Perhaps more important, he will not know whether he is right to suspect that people have described him as that without justification, but that is the rumour that is put around about him. That is the concept of the man's behaviour, character and history that is offered to the Home Office by malicious neighbours. The man has no way of challenging that, or arguing with the facts of the judgment.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he says is all the more pertinent, because groups of people who now have the right to confer citizenship—namely, husbands of foreign born wives—will be brought into the net for the first time if the Bill becomes law? The kind of salicious comments that my right hon. Friend mentions can place an additional intolerable strain on many marriages.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is true. We all know people in ethnic minorities who have been penalised by things that have been said about them by their neighbours or by people with whom they have had a dispute, as a result of which applications to remain here have been refused or extradition has been required. I fear that such a process will proliferate under the extensions of the Bill.
  828
  Confusions arise—understandably—between two Mr. Singhs and two Mr. Khans. I have done it myself. I shall not ask the Minister of State how often that happens, but I am sure that it happens often. There should be an obligation on the Home Secretary to prove that such errors do not occur if the offended person, or the person who believes that he has been offended, wants to make an application saying that the Home Secretary's judgment was wrong in fact or in opinion.
  The inadequacy of such a subjective set of rules, judged by the Home Secretary's representative, was conceded by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) spoke in Committee of an applicant who might say that he had been treated unfairly, because he contended his English was pretty good. That, cried the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), thinking that he was scoring a point, was a matter of opinion.
  Our case rests on our belief that matters of opinion ought not to determine the future of an individual or family. It should be determined in a manner that is more scientific, objective and legal.
  In refutation of that, I am sure that the Minister of State will say, as he did in Committee, that the system has worked well in the past and that the alternative that we propose offers a number of substantial difficulties, some involving administration and some involving security. I shall deal briefly with those matters.
  We have no idea how well the system worked in the past. We criticise the nature of a system under which there is no way of checking how well it operated in previous years. We have no idea of how many people who should have obtained British nationality were refused it, how many factual errors were made, or of how many of the judgments of Home Office officials would have been overturned had they been scrutinised by a court or tribunal. All that we know is that the Minister told us in Committee on 12 May that in 1980 there were 1,199 refused applications. He said that 249 were for character requirements, 190 for language failures, 483 for failures to fulfil the statutory residence requirements, and 264 were because, in the judgment of the Home Office, the applicant did not intend to fulfil future residence requirements—another subjective judgment which, in my view, was so indecisive as to be intolerable. The Minister of State said that 15 applications had been rejected for other reasons.
  I later added up the Minister of State's figures and discovered that they came to 1,201, so two items were missing. I shall be charitable and not attribute those two items to his arithmetic. They are probably two security cases that he did not put in any of the categories. I shall come to security cases in a moment.
  The Minister misunderstands the situation if he says that the present system is satisfactory simply because 1,199 refusals did not result in massive publicity, massive condemnation, massive dispute and massive disagreement. I do not believe that there is a Member of Parliament—certainly on these Benches—who has not applied for British citizenship on behalf of a constituent, found it refused, believed that the refusal was unreasonable, and witnessed the suffering, hardship and uncertainty that resulted from that refusal. Simply to say "Last year we managed 1,200, what are you complaining about?" does not meet the position; nor does an answer about the fears concerning consequent problems affecting security.

  829
  I made a proposal in Committee. If the Secretary of State wished to deny citizenship to a man or woman because in the opinion of those who advised him to grant citizenship would be a security risk to the United Kingdom, no one in his right mind would want the Secretary of State to be forced to justify that contention before a court or tribunal. I proposed that the Secretary of State should have the right to issue a warrant, saying that the refusal was for security reasons and that therefore there should be no appeal or examination of the case. In some cases, perhaps, the Secretary of State's information would be inadequate and the refusal unjustified, but I am prepared to risk that, in the interests of security.
  The only possible security risk that can come from my scheme is that which the Minister described. He said that to say that a man had been refused British citizenship because of his security classification would alert him to suspicions about himself. That is such a far-fetched risk that I am prepared to accept it in the interests of a proper and objective appeals system. I understand the security implications, but, with the proper will, the Home Secretary could overcome the problems.
  7. pm
  My right hon. and hon. Friends accept that a man or woman who is denied citizenship should know why it has been denied, have the opportunity to argue against the decision and the right to challenge the facts and the Home Secretary's judgment of the facts.
  Other matters arise from the Committee's considerations. The Minister said in Committee that the problem was not as great as we described because the rights lost through the withdrawal or refusal of citizenship were not as great as we tried to make out. He said that
  "for most people these matters do not impinge on their everyday lives, at least to the extent of, for example, immigration matters"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 12 May 1981, c. 1964.]
  People who have the right of abode in Britain do not have to have a stamp in their passport, nor do they have qualifications in relation to their stay. They can remain here without assuming British citizenship through naturalisation or registration. However, a man or woman applying for naturalisation or registration might be doing so to obtain rights which he or she regards as fundamental to existence in the United Kingdom. A job might be at stake. More important, at a time of insecurity among the ethnic minorities, the feeling of confidence in the country in which a person has chosen to live might be deeply undermined if he is told that he is not entitled to the full rights of citizenship and is not told why the right is denied.
  To say that the rights of citizenship do not impinge on everyday lives, at least to the extent of the immigration laws, is to deny the fundamental policy of citizenship as described in the Bill. The Government told us time after time in Committee, on Second Reading and outside, of the importance of British nationality being clearly defined, clearly understood and properly respected. If British nationality is that important—and I believe it to be—the House has a duty to protect the people who are entitled to British nationality under the Bill but fear that that right will be denied them. To fail to do that is to deny elementary justice.
  That denial might relate to 1,199 people, 99 people or even half a dozen. Whatever the number, the right to know
  830
  why an application has been refused and the right to appeal against that refusal are essential in principle and in practice. If the Home Secretary cannot move towards that this evening, we shall divide the House on principle and practice.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and his new clause. We discussed these matters at length in Committee. My right hon. Friend conceded that the new clause does not provide the full package required for a reasonable appeals system for registration and naturalisation cases. The right to appeal gives little if one does not know what one is appealing about. A case cannot be presented properly. An applicant would be able to say only "I applied. I think that I am entitled under schedule 1 but I do not know why I have been refused." The Home Office would then have to explain why the refusal was justified.
  The new clause must be considered with an amendment to the schedule. In the Chair's wisdom it has not been selected for discussion tonight, but it may be discussed on Thursday. The two propositions are linked. I hope that the Home Secretary will not reply to my right hon. Friend's submission by arguing that a major ingredient has been left out. It has not. If the Home Secretary is persuaded by our arguments he will appreciate that our proposals represent one way of tackling the problem.
  In Committee the Minister argued that the system had worked well since 1914 in naturalisation cases and since 1973 in registration cases. He misunderstands the argument. The system has worked well because nobody who has been refused has understood why. Nobody could kick up a storm. If people had known there would have been a regular storm about some decisions.
  I do not wish to repeat the stories of cases referred to in Committee, but one case turned my view. I refer to the case of Albie Sachs. A man's privations and experiences in a South African gaol are now part of the repertory of the English National Theatre—and the Home Secretary might take his wife there to watch the Albie Sachs play as part of the tribute that we pay to that man. He would have been refused citizenship if I had accepted the recommendations of officials. I refer not only to officials at assistant secretary level but to the personal endorsement of the permanent secretary in the Home Office. That case shows that there is something wrong with our system. If the case had been aired in the press and everybody had known the arguments many people who have seen the play and been deeply moved by it would be furious that that man might have been refused citizenship. There are many similar cases.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not in the Chamber, because I remember well his case involving the English language. He described in Committee a constituent of Polish culture who was unable to express himself to a Scottish policeman. However, the man was able to express himself in the company of people in London. He was refused citizenship because a Scottish policeman did not understand his Polish accent. Such a case would discredit the present structure of applying for naturalisation if it were widely known. As far as I know, none of those cases has been previously discussed in public because no one, except me, is unwise enough to do so. There are many

  831
  cases that, were the realities known, would lead to a discrediting of the system. It is wrong to continue with that system.
  Because of the Albie Sachs case I reached the view that we must have objective criteria. I am willing to accept that the definition of such criteria may be difficult. The proposals put in Committee, and the later amendment that may yet be discussed, may not be fully adequate, but it is not beyond the wit of man to define an objective criteria. It would be a vast improvement on the present position. If, in the course of time, such criteria were felt to be defective in some way, they could be amended. At least the system would be in the open. It would be subject to appeal. Someone else, apart from Home Office civil servants or Ministers, could apply his mind to the question "Is that a man whom we want as a British citizen?". I do not say that those who do such work at the Home Office are malign or in any way insensitive to the feelings of the applicant. The real issue is the judgment about whom we want as British citizens.
  Some of the Minister's remarks were typical of the attitudes reflected by officials in such cases. They say that it is true that a man has not yet been made bankrupt and has not yet committed a crime, but that he is so near to it, or is in such deep financial difficulties, that there is a possibility that after he has been granted citizenship he will become a cause celebre or a newspaper case, and people will say that we have discredited Britain because we allowed that man to become a citizen.
  I well understand the sense of public responsibility that dictates such an attitude, but the question whether the public would regard that as being an acceptable case should not be decided by civil servants or even by Home Office Ministers. It should be decided by the general feeling of the community at large. The issues about homosexuality and sexual behaviour would have been decided differently 10 or 15 years ago by public opinion. They are still being decided by officials who have had handed down to them a tradition of making decisions about such behaviour—a tradition that they continue to incorporate in their decision making although it is not necessarily the pattern of current public opinion. Such matters are best dealt with by an appeal to an objective panel—perhaps judges or adjudicators—who, because the decision takes place in public, can better reflect current public opinion.
  The issue is vital in determining whether what we achieve by the Bill is acceptable to the public at large. The Minister said that there had not been many complaints, but many more people will now be applying for citizenship than in the past. Because of the Government's decision to take away the right to register automatically for those who entered Britain before 1 January 1973, many more will have to go through the test. The Government have decided that women will not be granted citizenship automatically on marriage. Therefore, all women will have to go through the test. Many more will have to go through that barrier.
  7.15 pm
  Many people may, for one reason or another, be thought not to be of good character. I am still not sure whether the Home Office regards it as not being of good character if one has in some way misled the immigration officials about one's status in a way that is now accepted by the courts as being fraud or deceit. For example, one
  832
  may not have said something to an official, even when not asked the question, which had the official known about he would have regarded as material to the application.
  Nobody in his right mind, apart from the judges in the High Court, think that that is fraud. But the judges think that it is fraud and therefore it is the law. It is considered by Home Office officials to be fraud. If it is regarded as fraud, presumably it invalidates any application for citizenship. I assume that the Home Office will revoke citizenship, even after it has been granted, if it thinks that it was obtained by fraud. If that is so, it will cause immense difficulties for some of those who entered Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, when procedures at the ports were rather different from what they are today.
  People will have thrown at them things that they said or did not say, or half said, 20 years ago, as part of the apparatus of deciding whether they are British citizens. That was not the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when they applied for naturalisation. No one had to go through that sort of scrutiny. But people will have to do so now, especially the new Commonwealth immigrants who entered Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. If that is the position it is untrue to say that we are perpetuating what has gone before. We are perpetuating something that will have a much deeper bite on a wider section of the community and that will cause a great deal more concern than was caused in the past by naturalisation. For that reason, above all others, we should try to achieve some system of appeal such as that indicated in the Bill.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I want to say briefly why I regard the new clause as radically misconceived. There is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing, as a right to be naturalised. I say that in two senses—in the light of the Bill and upon more general considerations.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) inadvertently referred to a person entitled to naturalisation under schedule 1. Of course, schedule 1 does nothing of the sort, It sets out requirements that must be fulfilled in the opinion of the Secretary of State. It does not say that a person who fulfils the following conditions shall be entitled. In terms of the drafting of the Bill some of us, more than others, are familiar with the parts that include the word "entitlement", and where the Bill is stating or creating a right. In the case of naturalisation, the Bill does not do that.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not go far enough. He said that we cannot have the new clause unless we have much more precise definitions and also a requirement for disclosure. I go further. We cannot have the new clause unless we redraft the Bill to write into it a justiciable right to naturalisation. If we were to set to work to do that we should discover that we were attempting something that was inherently contradictory.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, that there are some cases where persons will in future look to naturalisation where I would have wished to see a right written into the Bill. It is not my fault that those who are married to British citizens do not have a right, by right of their marriage, to be British citizens. In general the Bill does not, and cannot, create a right to naturalisation. The essence of naturalisation is that persons who do not belong are accepted as for the future belonging in the full sense to the community. It would be inconceivable that we should have a law under which those who do not belong can say "We

  833
  have a right to belong". That is an inherent contradiction of the definition and nature of citizenship, namely, that those who do not possess it can have a right to it.
  The Bill could not create a right to naturalisation, but the clause is placing discretion in the hands of a tribunal. It is not even placing discretion in the hands of one of the normal courts. It is creating a special tribunal and is providing that the decision shall be made by that tribunal. I know that in the form of the clause this is an appeal. However, if there is an appeal in these circumstances, does not the House suppose that it will become normal form to say "Let us try it on with the appeal"?
  In effect, the clause is seeking to vest an executive decision—it is vesting a grant of a privilege, not the admission, definition or attribution of a right—to grant a privilege on behalf of the community not in the Executive but in a tribunal. The consequences of that are serious.
  The essence of our constitution is that the discretionary acts of Government are performed by responsible Ministers, who can be called to account in the House. I know that few cases of the refusal of naturalisation come on to the Floor of the House, though many come potentially to the Floor of the House in that they become matters of correspondence, discussion and debate between hon. Members and Ministers. There would be little use in hon. Members carrying on correspondence with Ministers if, behind that correspondence, there was not the possibility of claiming the attention and the opinion of the House if the matter seemed to it of sufficient importance, and if we did not believe that the Executive's power was being properly exercised. I repeat that it is of the essence of our constitution that where acts of a discretionary character are taken by Government, their execution is vested in Ministers who are responsible to Parliament.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: How does one raise such an issue on the Floor of the House or through the Parliamentary Commissioner if the Minister's answer is always the same, namely "We are not bound to give reasons and we do not propose to give them".
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman cited an example where in his opinion it would have been scandalous if naturalisation had been refused. I shall assume that at that moment the hon. Gentleman was not in office but out of office. I do not believe that it would have been beyond the ingenuity or determination of the hon. Gentleman to secure a debate in the House on the subject and to raise the matter. It is a matter perfectly capable of being properly raised within the scope of the rules of order. The issue would be the method in which a Minister had exercised a discretion accorded to him under an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: Yes. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate.
  Mr. Davis: Is not this theoretical? The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that one can raise such a matter at Question Time or make it the subject of an Adjournment debate. The Minister's response will undoubtedly be the same, namely, that alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). How can one expose a failure on the part of a Minister to apply his mind properly when the Minister hides behind such a response?
  Mr. Powell: I have known case after case—I am sure that such has occurred in the time of the hon. Gentleman—where what has begun as an individual case has become a parliamentary occasion. Such matters have sometimes led to the resignation of the Minister concerned. Crichel Down began as an individual case. It was an act of administrative judgment. It ended in the resignation of a Cabinet Minister. It is absurd to dismiss my argument as theoretical.
  I agree that our constitutional rights and practices are matters of theory, but the fact that they may be stated in theoretical terms is not to say that we cannot exercise them extremely effectively in the House.
  The clause is asking the House to transfer responsibility for discretionary executive acts of Government from itself to a specially created tribunal. That is contrary to our constitutional practice it is contrary to the functions and duties of the House and it rests upon radical confusion. I hope that the House will not accept the new clause.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made a most extraordinary speech. There are many examples of executive discretion being subject to a tribunal. For example, if a supplementary benefit officer, using his executive discretion, refuses to grant someone a form of supplementary benefit, there may be an appeal to an appeals tribunal. That is a practice that is well established throughout a range of activity in our Government machinery. That has been the position for many years. The new clause seeks to create nothing new.
  This is an important new clause but there are one or two other factors to consider. First, the applicant should be given the reasons for refusal except in certain limited cases that involve security.
  One of my constituents had been applying for many years for naturalisation. Each year he had been refused without any reason being given. He eventually came to see me. I wrote to the Minister—this was at the time of the previous Labour Government—and I received exactly the same answer. The letter stated: "We regret that we are unable to grant naturalisation to this citizen. It is not our practice to give reasons." I wrote again and asked the Minister whether he would give me the reason on the understanding that I as a Member of Parliament would undertake to keep it confidential. I received a blank refusal. However, a sentence towards the end of the letter suggested that I should advise my constituent to apply again in two years' time. I do not know whether that was meant to give me a hint of the reason for the refusal of naturalisation.
  I took up the matter with my constituent and went through all the likely reasons involving character—for example, whether he had been adjudged bankrupt or whether he had committed any criminal offences. We even discussed driving offences. I told him that he should apply in two years' time. He asked me what he should do in the intervening two years. He asked "How do I change my life so that I shall be a suitable candidate in two years for naturalisation if I am not a suitable candidate now?" I could not answer that question and I do not think that it could be answered by anyone else. In such circumstances the system becomes ridiculous.
  In cases of refusal the reasons should be given so that the applicants have the chance to refute them. It is necessary to have a second stage—some form of appeal

  835
  tribunal. I do not know whether the tribunal that is proposed in the new clause is exactly the right one—better brains than mine have formulated the clause—but there should be some appeal procedure.
  The difficulty with ministerial discretion is that it is not necessarily consistent. I presume that when an individual case is sent to the Minister, a civil servant will present a brief to the Minister to help him to come to a decision. I sometimes wonder whether that brief is exactly the same in all cases. I suspect that much depends on which Minister is in office or which Government are in power. I have noticed a different attitude towards ministerial discretion under the present Government than under the previous Government.
  Many Members of Parliament will have noticed that a much harder line on discretion has been taken by the present Minister than by some of his predecessors. I do not need to mention the disgraceful case of Mohammed Sadiq, with which the Minister of State will be familiar. It must forever be a blot on the conscience of the Home Office. That is just one example; there are many others.
  7.30 pm
  There are many cases today in which the present Minister has refused discretion, but I could almost guarantee that under some previous Ministers that discretion would have been granted. Does that mean that one Minister is more willing to override the advice that is given by civil servants? Does it mean that the civil servants' advice is slanted because they know the tendencies of the Minister? It boils down to the fact that the question of discretion is so subjective as to be utterly meaningless.
  Therefore, we need some objectivity. That can be brought about by giving the reasons for a refusal and by an appeal against those reasons.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: It has been said that what distinguishes us in our constitution, unwritten though it is, is the fact that we have a number of recourses against acts of the Executive which appear oppressive. We can go to Parliament, to the media and to an independent judiciary.
  The proposal in clause 41 is to exclude entirely, for the people living in this country, any right of appeal to the courts. That is something which one expects to find in a totalitarian regime. One finds it in countries such as South Africa, where legislation expressly excludes recourse to the courts for persons living in that country in certain situations.
  I hope that no Government would enable a situation to arise in this country in which no one can go to the courts and the courts are thrust to one side. That happens in clause 41. There is no right of appeal. More than that, the clause goes out of its way to say that there shall be no judicial review. What does that mean? It means that administrative law is also excluded from the Bill. That is to say that there can be no application to the divisional court to see whether the processes by which the Home Office reaches a decision accord with the rules of natural justice and whether the criteria which are being applied are proper.
  It is in that context that one considers the concession that the Government made, late in the Committee stage, when they inserted as clause 41(1) the declaration that any discretion vested under the Act by the Secretary of State or his surrogates.
  836
  "shall be exercised without regard to…race, colour or religion".
  That sounds very grand but when one reads directly after that that there shall be no appeal or even a review against any decision of the Home Office and that one should not know what the reason for refusal is, how on earth can clause 41(1) be meaningful? There is no means of knowing whether the officials acting under the Secretary of State are or are not having regard to race, colour or religion. Unless one can know how that decision is reached as a general rule, what possible method is there of checking that clause 41(1) is being observed?
  It is essential to give meaning to clause 41(1). There should be a right of review of decisions. We do not have it. I believe that the Government are determined not to give it and came to the conclusion that they should insert the words about not having regard to race, colour or religion only because they knew that they could carry this provision, which denies all access to any tribunal in relation to any decision which is arrived at by the Home Office.
  We know that the Minister of State is in charge. We perhaps know who the civil servants are. However, in 20 years' time when there is a different Minister, who may have different views, and other civil servants, who may not even tell the Minister how they have altered the criteria by which they are judging the applications, there will be no means of checking what is going on.
  It is not satisfactory to say that a Member of Parliament can write to a Minister. Everything depends on the Minister. He may be overburdened with work and may take a narrow view. He may take a different view from his predecessor. The Member of Parliament may not like the person who is approaching him for help. He may say that he will not raise the matter and that he will not help that person. If one has recourse to the courts, that is a right: to go to the courts. It does not matter whether the solicitor likes the person concerned; his duty is to take the matter further and to give his best advice, admittedly for a fee. A Member of Parliament has no obligation to take up a case for a constituent. Every hon. Member knows that Members of Parliament take up a case in different ways. It is wrong that the rights of a person in this fundamental area should be defined by the personality, views and capacity of his current Member of Parliament.
  Therefore, one must object to the absence of any right of appeal. It is not as if the criteria in schedule 1 for naturalisation are simply factual criteria. Good character is a matter of opinion. Residence, curiously enough, is often a matter of opinion because one civil servant may believe that if an applicant has been out of the country for a year in the last five, he is disqualified because he has not been resident for the previous five years. Another civil servant may take a different view and say that he draws the line at 15 months and that, if the applicant has been out of the country for only 12 months, he can go through. It is a matter of opinion. The question where the man intends to live in future is a matter of opinion. Different people may form different opinions about the applicant's intentions. When the opinion of the Minister and his underlings is of such crucial significance, it is more important than ever to have a right of appeal.
  There are various ways of setting up an appeals procedure. New clause 4, proposed by the official Opposition, is one way. Another way is to use the same procedure which we have for immigration appeals, to go

  837
  to an adjudicator and from an adjudicator to an appeal tribunal. That is happening now. That is the substance of new clause 12, which has been tabled on behalf of the Social Democratic Party, but has not been selected. Whatever the system of appeal, there should be a system of appeal in the first place. When there is a Division on new clause 4, as we have been promised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that new clause should be supported by all members of the Opposition and by anyone in the House who values the judiciary as an additional check on the powers of the Executive.
  Government Members often say that official Opposition Members are always denigrating the judiciary, but to take away recourse to the judiciary is a fundamental attack on its power. The judiciary would not shrink from accepting responsibility for appeal and judicial review of ministerial decisions. It is said that in this area it is wrong to set up a judicial decision against a Government decision, but that is not correct. If an appeal system is to function properly, the Government must give the reason for refusal. If they say that it is that residence requirements have not been satisfied, but the applicant disagrees, by giving that as the sole reason for refusal the Government enable the matter to be reviewed by a judicial tribunal. They would not be hiding the reasons for refusal. Because of security, the Government may at times feel it unwise to give reasons, but generally there is no reason why they should not when the refusal is on the grounds of residence, intention of future residence or language.
  In effect, the Minister's decision on the grounds of language is simply on the recommendation of a police officer. That is the ministerial decision. A police officer visits a house, and, often by reference to his own education and ability to speak English, decides whether the applicant speaks it well enough. He makes a report on which the Minister acts. The civil servants or the Minister have not listened to the applicant. The ministerial discretion is, in fact, the discretion of a police officer, on which the Minister puts a rubber stamp. If the decision on citizenship is to be made by one police officer, the need for appeal is even more important.
  In 1980, 190 refusals were based on inadequacy of ability to speak English. The number will increase. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out that the Bill will compel foreign and Commonwealth wives to apply for naturalisation or registration and to pass a language test. That will prevent many wives from obtaining British citizenship, as they will not be able to pass the test. With an increasing number of refusals on the ground of language, and the decision often being made, in effect, by a police officer, the need for an appeal system grows ever stronger.
  I hope that the debate will be seen as dealing with civil liberties, to sustain the right of every citizen and non-citizen resident in and subject to the law of the country to go to the courts for redress. Whatever the 1948 Act states, we should take the opportunity to strike a blow to strengthen the rights of individual citizens and residents to go to the courts.
  7.45 pm
  Clause I is relevant to the appeal procedure, since it removes the right of every child born here to be British.
  838
  If a child's parents are not British but are settled here, he can be British. Many applications for citizenship may be refused. The applicant may believe that one parent was settled here at the time of birth but the Home Office may not. How can the matter be resolved by an independent tribunal if there is no right of appeal? That is an additional reason for an appeal system.
  The Government should give effect to clause 41(1), which states that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or creed, by allowing decisions to be reviewed. From the figures given by the Minister, it is obvious that more than 75 per cent. of the refusals in 1980 were based on residence and language and not on good character, which may involve security. At least in those cases, the Government should give reasons for refusing and allow a right of appeal. I hope that they will reconsider.
  Mr. David Crouch: I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). He addressed us with knowledge and passion. He is a lawyer, and knows what he is talking about, and he feels what he says. However, I do not agree with him about human rights. There should be a right of appeal, but, strangely, I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that naturalisation is not a right but an opportunity and privilege. There is no human right to naturalisation.
  Strangely, sometimes our opinions change as a debate progresses. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for the first 20 minutes I could not disagree with him. The title of the new clause, "Right of Appeal", is such that no one could oppose it. It is a right that should exist for everyone, whatever his nationality or position, here or elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman was persuasive, and I was inclined to believe that we should not leave the matter to the subjective decision of the Secretary of State, advised, also subjectively, by his officials.
  However, as I listened to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) argue learnedly and cogently why we must have the right of appeal, I realised that we need yet another amendment. The new clause, combined with schedule 1, would not be enough, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted. If ever a schedule was full of generalities, schedule 1 is. Who determines what is good character? A lawyer or a judge cannot determine it better than I, the Home Secretary or his officials. What is a sufficient—that is a strange word for lawyers—knowledge of the language? That description is not enough.
  I speak as an amateur, from the legal aspect, although not in the context of meeting people seeking naturalisation. As has been said, we all have to respond to constituents seeking help with naturalisation papers. When the point was raised by other hon. Members, I began to consider the case of a constituent, who may already have one or two references from people who he worked with, asking for help and a reference.
  Such a case arose in my constituency recently. An Indian citizen seeking nationalisation came to me for assistance. He was a milkman, known to many people, and had many references to prove his good character. He had a reference from the local parson. In due course, willingly, not as an amateur, but as a Member of Parliament knowledgeable of my constituent because of the references I had seen, I wrote to the Minister of State strongly backing

  839
  up the application. I do not yet know the answer, but I wonder whether my support for my constituent influenced the subjective judgment of the officials in the Home Office and finally the subjective judgment of Ministers. I hear one of my hon. Friends say "Not a chance", but how do we know? Nobody has told us today. We do not know.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: The Minister may be able to make a proper judgment on matters such as character, but what about language? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas somebody appearing in person before a tribunal could convince or fail to convince the tribunal that he had a sufficient knowledge of the language, that right does not apply if the Minister takes the decision?
  Mr. Crouch: I am about to become more liberal. I confess to the hon. Gentleman that that is a point upon which I stumble. If it is true that a policeman knocking on the door determines the essential element in a person's requirement to become naturalised, I am not happy about that. I leave that comment in the air, to descend where I hope that it will descend, namely, on the Government Front Bench.
  As I promised, I shall now be liberal in my thoughts. Up to now, I must have sounded over-reactionary in a way that is not normal for me, but I was reacting to the debate. My liberal thought on the matter is this. Let us suppose that we followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice and accepted the new clause. There is nothing wrong with the drafting. It is what it ultimately implies that worries me. It implies an exact specification, written down in yet another new clause about good character, sufficient knowledge of the language, and many other aspects.
  All this will have to be spelt out. I can see the lawyers and draftsmen getting involved in spelling this out in great detail, such as only an Army staff officer could imagine. I am being very considerate to ordinary civil servants in that comment. I can then envisage officials deciding that before they go to the Minister of State or the Secretary of State they must be doubly careful to dot their i's and cross their t's, and that they must be very careful about recommending anything, because the new clause will operate and the matter will go to a tribunal. They will say, "We must not be found to have shown any discretion or to have been liberal in our recommendations to the Minister." They will believe that they must be accurate to the letter and not so much to the spirit of the law.
  As is only gracious, as the hon. Member for Canterbury, I shall give way to the hon. Member for York. Before doing so, however, I must point out that I am an amateur in this. I am not good enough to argue the legal niceties of the matter, but I can understand the common sense of it. I can see that we would rob the officals, and certainly the Secretary of State, of all discretion in the matter. I do not know how they use their discretion, but I think that we might rob them of it. Therefore, I think that it might be better to leave things as they are and to trust successive Home Secretaries to use their judgment in this matter. Is that so wrong?
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: From the equal province of York, I would first say to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the provisions that we suggest that would stop the Home Secretary being liberal. Under any proposal that we put forward, he is free to grant citizenship. Nobody will appeal against that. It is only an appeal against refusal
  840
  that is required. If Home Office officals are running around saying that they want to be liberal, there is nothing to stop them. Nobody will question that. This is specifically set out in the amendment to which I referred in relation to schedule I.
  Mr. Crouch: I understand the hon. Gentleman. I am simply concerned that once we spell these matters out, dotting the i's and crossing the t's, people will stumble on a particular hurdle that they cannot get over no matter how liberal the Home Secretary is or how much discretion his officials wish to give him, because those people will not be able to meet the exact definition of what determines whether they have the right—if right it be—to be granted naturalisation papers.
  I would therefore leave it to the discretion of the Home Secretary. I would also leave this debate, which will continue yet, not to be altogether forgotten when the Bill becomes an Act, so that when the procedures are worked in the future Parliament will continue to be concerned about the matter. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, it is not just the tribunal to which people go. Ultimately, this place is a tribunal. People can go to their Member of Parliament and have the matter raised here, not just in a letter but in an Adjournment debate, of under Standing Order No. 9. A great protest can be raised. It has happened on other matters. To suggest, as hon. Members have, that this does not and cannot happen is to be blinkered about their real opportunities to serve their constituents.
  Therefore, albeit having listened to the wise arguments explaining why it should be otherwise, I should prefer to leave this matter to the discretion of the Ministers.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I support new clause 4 because I believe, first, that the Bill creates new forms of citizenship and that new procedures are therefore necessary to deal with new situations.
  I accept entirely that there has not been a great deal of fuss in the past about refusal of British citizenship or naturalisation, but it is difficult to kick up a fuss about something when one does not know the facts. As has been pointed out, if one writes to the Home Secretary challenging a decision, he simply writes back saying that he is not at liberty to disclose his reasons, nor indeed is he required to do so under the existing law, and so on. I accept that that is his right at present, but in that situation it is very difficult to argue a case.
  I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) because a case was brought to me last year in which I think that the man involved was refused on the grounds of language. When I met and spoke to him, I could not believe that his case had been refused on the basis of inadequate knowledge of the language. It could only have been with regard to the written word, as he certainly spoke the language fluently. I could only assume, therefore, that he had been subjected to some kind of written test. But it is very difficult to argue a case when the Home Office will not say that that was the reason, although one may suspect the grounds by reading between the lines of the reply, and so on.
  I should have thought that this was only common justice. Like the hon. Member for Canterbury, I am not a lawyer. I cannot argue the niceties of the law like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), but I know that, now

  841
  and in future, one person will have the discretion to decide whether another human being should be given citizenship, and that that human being will have no right of appeal against the Minister's decision.
  8 pm
  I have heard all the arguments about how the matter can be dealt with on the Floor of the House. They are theoretical arguments, which are not supported by practice. An hon. Member would have to have grounds for bringing a case to the attention of the House. As has been said, that is specifically precluded by the Bill. The Minister does not have to give grounds. Even if an hon. Member had grounds, my experience is that he would have a difficult task if he sought to argue an individual case.
  There is nothing new about tribunals that can challenge the decisions of Ministers. There is nothing new about constituents having the right to challenge Ministers' decisions before a tribunal. In immigration cases, that happens all the time. The Minister may refuse a person the right of admission, the right to settle here, or an extension of stay. When that happens, people appeal to tribunals. For example, there may be a dispute about the right to bring relatives to Britain. When an applicant is turned down by civil servants he may write to the Minister, who may tell him to go to the tribunal.
  Even after the tribunal has reached a decision, a Minister may exercise his discretion. Recently, there was a famous case in my constituency, in which I was partly involved but from which I later withdrew. I refer to the case of Anwar Ditta, which received great national publicity. The Minister exercised his discretion after the tribunal had refused admission to her children. The establishment of a tribunal for cases involving naturalisation will not limit the Minister's discretion. In supporting the new clause, I should have thought that I was helping the Minister. I should have thought that a Minister would be happy to pass on such responsibility to a judicial tribunal in the knowledge that his decision could be questioned. Indeed, any thorough democrat would welcome that. In addition, his decision could be questioned in a proper judicial court with evidence being adduced and so on. Therefore, there are strong grounds for supporting the new clause. The Bill creates a new situation, and new methods of dealing with it must be found.
  I said that I would be brief, because the last new clause to be called is a Liberal one. The longer that I speak the less chance there is of discussing it. I strongly support the new clause because this is a matter of human rights. Someone will have the right to refuse citizenship to an individual and that individual—whatever the legal niceties—will have no right of appeal and no right to argue his case before an independent body. The decision may be made without the individual involved knowing the facts that are being considered. Human dignity and human rights demand that new clause 4 be accepted. I hope that the House will support it.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I was not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill. Hon. Members may laugh, but perhaps it is a matter of assessment. I feel like someone who has wandered into the middle of a conversation. However, I have had as many distressing constituency cases of this type as has any hon.
  842
  Member. And I recollect debates on the Immigration Bill 1971. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) pointed out, we had long discussions about the difficulties of appeals and about how they could be surmounted. On that occasion, we managed to persuade the Government that the problems were not insuperable.
  This issue is clear-cut. As the hon. Member for Rochdale asked, is the Secretary of State to have a series of completely unfettered discretions, which will deeply affect the lives of human beings, and for which he is unanswerable other than in the hereafter? Or is he to be recognised as human, like the rest of us, and as not claiming any divine power over other humans and thus answerable to some tribunal on behalf of the community?
  I join issue with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on two matters. He advanced the startling proposition that unless there was a right, at least in certain circumstances, to nationality, there was no issue that was justifiable before a court. Every day of the week courts ask whether a discretion was properly exercised, whether it was based on an accurate assessment of the facts, or on an accurate interpretation of the statute. Every day courts ask whether the person who exercised that discretion had taken into account something that should not have been taken into account and whether proper weight had been given to all the relevant factors.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to defend the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but his point was clear. If conditions are set, and the applicant meets them, the Home Secretary may still say that he wishes to exercise his discretion. There is no entitlement to naturalisation. It is entirely a matter of the Home Secretary's discretion. Even if the applicant successfully jumps all the hurdles that are erected, there is no guarantee that he will be naturalised. Although I accept the new clause as it stands, the official Opposition must rethink their position. We are faced with a dilemma. Perhaps we should be prepared to consider giving a right to naturalisation when certain conditions have been fulfilled.
  Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend and I are at one on this. I, too, should like to dispense with the language of discretion in the statute. As long as it exists, there can be no appeal on the merits of the case to any other tribunal. For the moment, we are faced with a Bill that uses the language of discretion. I am basing my argument on that assumption, if only because there must be a limit to the length of my speech. One can still ask whether the person who made the decision had fully understood the facts and the nature of the law that he sought to apply. One can still ask whether he took account of something that he should have excluded from his mind. At the very least, someone should be able to ask those questions. For that reason, I venture to differ from the right hon. Member for Down, South.
  I also had the misfortune to differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that we did not need a judicial form of appeal, because there was always the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has given one answer. If the Minister can say that Parliament has told him that he does not have to give any reason for his decision, that is an effective damper on any debate in the House. There is a more practical difficulty, which is well known to anyone who has served as a Law Officer. The House is hot the best forum for discussing

  843
  some personal decisions. There may be embarrassing personal details, where a court would probably sit in camera. The House has to do everything publicly. A Minister might want to make an allegation against someone for perfectly proper reasons. He might wish to say that he did not exercise his discretion in the applicant's favour because he had acted wickedly.
  In the House, evidence is not called and there is no cross-examination. There is little opportunity for argument about the details of any allegation. As a result, the situation might be embarrassing. So the House is not always the best forum in personal matters. The Government's position is clear. It is enshrined in clause 41(2). They want to eliminate all power for the courts to intervene. That may be deeply shocking, but I doubt whether we should be surprised. The Home Office has never enjoyed giving reasons for its mental processes.
  In an article in The Daily Telegraph of 27 April, Mr. Paul Sieghart spoke of that proposal as
  "A clause without any known precedent in British statute."
  In Committee the Minister said that that was wrong and pointed to section 26 of the British Nationality Act 1948. He said that that was the precedent. Whatever other differences there may be, I can say what was in the mind of Mr. Sieghart, because I ventured to ask him.
  Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I, too, am a member of the Council of Justice, and Mr. Sieghart was rather encouraged by the council to write the article in question. What he had in mind was that there had been no previous instance in statute of an attempt to exclude judical review under the new rules, for the very good reason that until four years ago there was no judical review. Until 1977 it had not been introduced. The rules of court were introduced in that year to follow the recommendation of the Law Commission. That was what was in the mind of Mr. Seighart. This is the first attempt to exclude that procedure.
  It is a battle, which goes back a long way, between the parliamentary draftsmen seeking a form of words with which to place the decisions of the Executive beyond review in the courts, and the courts finding ways of looking round the corners. The statute says that there should be no appeal, so the courts look to see whether the decision was within the jurisdiction of the person who purported to take it. If the statute says that his view of his jurisdiction shall be final, the courts look to see whether the decision that he took was the one that was committed to him by statute.
  Some of us were brought up from our earliest days as law students on cases like Board of Education v Rice in 1911 and on a whole series of cases until the Anisminic case in 1969. Some of us remember the Tameside case in 1977—it is deeply etched on our hearts—where the courts in effect said "It appears that the matter was left to the Minister to decide, but he did not ask himself the right question. What he thought he was asking himself was not what he was really asking himself."
  Even in the high-water mark case of Liversidge Anderson in the middle of the war, when everybody was desperately concerned that the Executive should have the most adequate of powers, the speech that has been most frequently quoted is the dissenting speech of Lord Atkin. He was troubled by a similar clause even then. He said:
  "It is a decision which is made by an Executive Minister and not by any kind of judicial officer. It is not made after any inquiry
  844
  as to facts to which the subject is a party. It cannot be reversed on any appeal and there is no limit to the period for which the detention may last".
  With the exception of the "detention", Lord Atkin might have been speaking about this provision, which can be as deeply affecting in the life of an individual as detention. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons)—I think that I can still call him that—pointed out, if the clause is carried it will be in direct conflict with the other subsection of clause 41, because no declaration can be other than empty words, sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, if it can be argued that the person who took the decision does not have to give any reason. Nobody can investigate whether he took into account something that the other subsection said he should not take into account. He will tell us—if he chooses—that he did not, and that will be the end of the debate.
  I am not usually given to quoting, and I do so on this occasion to show that there is a large body of opinion which is deeply opposed to the Government on this issue. It is not only the judges. It is a provision of a kind that is deplored by all constitutional writers, from Dicey onwards. Dicey, in his "Law of the Constitution", spoke of the rule of law. He said:
  "It means in the first place the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government."
  I could quote another dozen authorities, but I should like to give one other high-water mark. It is a quotation from "The New Despotism" by a Lord Chief Justice and former Conservative Minister, Lord Hewart. Speaking of exactly this kind of provision, he said:
  "There can be little doubt that it is the officials in the Departments concerned who initiate the legislation by which arbitrary powers are conferred upon them."
  I am not sure that I would necessarily wish to jump to that conclusion—it may be unfair—but that is what he said. He added:
  "When Parliament passes such legislation one may wonder how many Members outside the Ministry know what they are really doing. How much less do the people know what is being done in this respect by their representatives? It is inconceivable that such legislation would be passed, at all events without protest, if the legislators knew that they were sapping the foundations of the constitution. All great constitutional lawyers have recognised that it is the rule or supremacy of the law, administered by independent judges, that is the basis of all our constitutional liberties, and it is this characteristic of the British constitution which above all makes that constitution admired throughout the civilised world. Arbitrary power is certain in the long run to become despotism."
  8.15 pm
  The most recent authoritative work on this question is that of Professor de Smith on "Judicial Review of Administrative Action". He said:
  "The role of the courts in reviewing administrative acts and decisions has become far more active and creative. This is a phenomenon of the past 15 years and its origins are not so easily identifiable but it must have owed something to post-Franks ethos, to an increase in awareness of the more impressive performance of United States, France and some Commonwealth countries, to a judicial willingness to adopt a more purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes, and to the indirect influence of academic literature upon practitioners, as well as to the resourcefulness of individual judges."
  When Professor de Smith speaks of the more effective way in which these things are done in the United States, he reminds us that people find no problems there about the judicial review of exactly this kind of discretion. The way

  845
  that they deal with an application for naturalisation is set out in a guide prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says:
  "If information is developed that indicates that the applicant may not be eligible for naturalisation, he is subjected to a thorough personal investigation which includes the right to subpoena witnesses before a naturalisation examiner. The applicant is entitled to be represented by counsel and to be informed of adverse evidence, to introduce evidence on his behalf and to examine witnesses. A recommendation that the applicant be denied naturalisation must be accompanied by a summary of the evidence, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and where the denial of naturalisation is recommended the petitioner is entitled to a full hearing before the court, with a right to produce witnesses to support his application."
  Mr. Dan Jones: Has that system been successful in America and, if so, for how long?
  Mr. Archer: I am not sure that I can answer my hon. Friend's second question off the cuff, but I am told by my friends in the American Civil Liberties Union that there is no doubt it has been successful. We do not know whether the system here is successful, because no one is ever in a position to complain to the courts. But in the United States of America there has been complaint from time to time and everyone seems to be satisfied with the system.
  The media appear to take the same view of this kind of provision as do the Opposition. I have looked at some of the things that the media said immediately after the Tameside case. The Daily Telegraph spoke of Tameside as
  "A fresh curb on growing state control".
  The Daily Mail headline was
  "Schools verdict a big step forward in the fight for liberty".
  The Times said:
  "At the same time there is a robustness about all the appeal judges' approach to the case, a willingness to examine grounds for challenge and a desire to give full weight to statutory limitations on ministerial discretion. All that is heartening evidence that the long retreat of the judiciary before the aggrandisement of the executive has been halted".
  That was in reference to a Labour Minister, but I am sure that the press would be fair enough not to introduce distinctions based upon the party affiliations of the Minister concerned. So the newspapers appear to take the same view of this attempt to exclude ministerial discretions from judicial review, to hide them in a corner away from the light of day.
  But the Conservative Party itself has a long-standing view on this question. I could produce quotations from Lord Hugh Cecil, but in view of the shortage of time I shall deny myself that pleasure. But I should like to offer two quotations. The first is from Sir Arthur Bryant in "The Spirit of Conservatism". He said:
  "Justice enforced by the State gives to each man some measure of certainty, enabling him to know where he stands and to plan for the future accordingly".
  That was not my selection. It was quoted by a young Conservative politician called Quintin Hogg in his book "The Case For Conservatism" in 1947. He added these words:
  "The rule of law is as much opposed to regulation and dictatorship as it is to licence or anarchy. What ought to control the individual is not the whim of another individual or group of individuals, even if these are for the moment in legitimate enjoyment of all the panoply and prestige of office."
  It would be distressing if the Lord Chancellor felt a difficulty in supporting the Bill in its present form in view of what he wrote, very properly, in the past.
  846
  The Conservative Party has from time to time departed from some of the matters that were previously in its philosophy. I do not believe that it has departed on this occasion. In its election manifesto in 1979 it said:
  "We will see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions, and we will seek to make it effective in the job of controlling the executive."
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has sought retrospectively to charge local authorities in respect of budgets arrived at before he was given the powers, but I do not believe that even the Conservative Party has departed from its manifesto as completely as that.
  If the Secretary of State resists this new clause, and if he goes to another Conservative Party conference, I hope he will be told "We believe in the control of arbitrary power. Conservative theorists have said it since Lord Hugh Cecil. The Lord Chancellor believes it. We said it in our election manifesto. It is part of the British Constitution. That principle is not just for trade unions and Labour councillors. It is valid for all people irrespective of their name or the colour of their skin."
  When the Minister of State adopted the other subsection in clause 41 he must have felt that too, because he could not have intended it to be just an empty declaration. At the moment it only confirms the right of every citizen and would-be citizen of the country under the European Convention on Human Rights. How much better to get the matter sorted out over here. If the Secretary of State were to accept this new clause he would earn the approval of the judiciary, of all the authoritative writers on constitutional law, of the media who applauded the decision in the Tameside case, of the Lord Chancellor and those whom he quoted, and of those who drafted the Conservative manifesto.
  Who is there left to please? Surely not the Secretary of State himself. I believe that he is a humane and fair man. I do not think that he would wish to conceal his decisions behind a curtain of mystery. Is it the officials in the Home Office? It would be unfair to jump to any conclusion when they are not here to speak for themselves. Whomever it is he wishes to please, if they want to see decisions taken under cover of darkness, not just decisions about security, where there may be problems, but all decisions arising from the Bill, and if they want to see decisions that are not justified openly and honestly, I say to the Secretary of State that he should not trouble to please them, because they are not worth pleasing.
  Miss Jo Richardson: I almost hesitated to rise, because of the powerful character of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). After that speech there is very little to add. I do not see how the Secretary of State can resist that case. I wish simply to make a couple of brief comments.
  The whole debate has been about civil liberties and the liberty of the individual, whether he or she be a citizen or, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, a would-be citizen of the country. It is about the right of a person to know what is being said about him and the right to challenge it. We have heard much about the list of criteria in schedule 1 on which a person is going to be judged for citizenship. As has already been said, one of the items is good character. We are given to understand that the decision is linked with the visit of a police officer who talks to the individual.
  Presumably the police officer decides whether the person being interviewed can speak English. We are also

  847
  led to believe that the police officer may have to make a judgment about the character of the person who is being interviewed. I am not satisfied with that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) quoted the Minister of State, who said that a number of other factors are to be taken into consideration. By implication the Minister of State gave a list of the matters that were not taken into consideration in arriving at a decision about the character of an applicant for citizenship.
  The Home Office must have some form of test to decide whether a person is of good character. If the Home Secretary is to reply I should like to know how the process is carried out. For example, are the employers of the person visited? Are they asked for their view of the person who has applied for citizenship? Are neighbours quizzed about the character of the individual? Are friends or people in the local pub asked whether the chap is a decent fellow, or whether he drinks too much? Is the wife or the husband of the applicant asked whether the person comes home late, or has girl friends, boy friends, men friends, or whatever?
  By what method does the Home Office decide to grant citizenship in each case? There must be a good deal of snooping. I use the word advisedly. It reminds me very much of the arguments that have been put in the House previously about the tests that I hope we have got rid of on the operation of the cohabitation rule in social security. A person who was in receipt of benefit and was suspected of having claimed that benefit fraudulently was snooped on by neighbours and by officials who were trying to find out whether the person was living with someone else. I believe that there is still an element of snooping.
  We do not want to go down that road in regard to decisions on citizenship. I should like to give two brief examples of what I am trying to say. The first concerns someone whom I hardly know but who engaged me in conversation because we both had to wait a long time for a bus. A woman started to complain to me about a neighbour who was extremely noisy, according to her. She said she had suffered very much recently because of the noisiness of this neighbour. She wanted to know what she could do about it. This was put not just to-me but to the bus queue. One or two people asked what the person had been doing. The answer came as follows "Of course, he is black and he lives with a white woman. They have a child. They live next door to me and they have parties." I said "I do not think you should continue along that line, because it sounds racially prejudiced." She said "They are always having parties; you know what these black people are like". I discovered that during the five months when the couple had lived next door to this lady they had had three parties, two of which were over the Christmas holiday.
  If a police officer or someone from the Home Office had visited that woman and asked her for an opinion of her next-door neighbour in connection with an application for citizenship, that woman would undoubtedly have given a bad character to an individual whom she hardly knew but against whom she had this tremendous prejudice. That is the sort of occurrence that we must guard against.
  8.30 pm
  I have a Maltese constituent who has lived in Barking for more than 20 years, who has never been naturalised, whose wife is English, and whose children are British
  848
  citizens. Four years ago my constituent came to me and said "I have never thought about it before, but my children and my wife and grandchildren are asking why I am not a British citizen". He said that he had applied for British citizenship but had been refused. He spoke perfectly good English. He had a small business of his own, and no problems. The one small matter that he thought might have militated against the granting of citizenship was that some years ago he had been stopped for speeding. I assured him that I did not think that that could be the reason for the refusal. I had no method of checking. I took up the case with the Home Office and I was told, as every Member of Parliament is told, "Sorry, you cannot know the reasons; they are secret".
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that an important element of an appeals system is its openness, and that the way in which relatively minor offences are used by Government Departments behind a barrier of secrecy can be dangerous? Until comparatively recently, when a case was raised with me and other Labour Members of Parliament, the Department of Education and Science automatically warned each teacher about every offence he committed, including minor motoring offences such as driving without due care and attention, under penalty of losing his job. This system was used by bureaucrats as part of the administrative procedure, because it was not questioned.
  Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend is right. We must have openness. There is some openness in, for example, the social security system, where appeals are possible. The only sensible, decent and honourable course is to tell people who apply for citizenship the reasons for refusal, so that they know exactly what they are up against. That is what the Opposition are trying to do in this clause by providing a right of appeal. If we do not do that, we can no longer talk about openness. We shall be seen to be acting with a secrecy that can be paralleled only by the secret trials of totalitarian regimes, which we all despise and deplore. It is an essential part of the tradition of British justice that we should pass the clause.
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am moved to offer a brief intervention in this debate by the remarkable contribution made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He proceeded to create a magnificent structure, an edifice built of emotion and logic, which was impressive on the outside but virtually empty on the inside. The edifice, to put it at its kindest, was highly challengeable and debatable.
  We were taken over a great sweep of legal history from Dicey through to Tameside. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted Lord Hailsham, in his early youth, and Sir Arthur Bryant, and prayed in aid of the rule of law. If this is a sign of the conversion of some other members of the Labour party to the importance of the rule of law in our affairs and in the protection of the individual against the over-mighty Executive, it is a conversion greatly to be welcomed.
  But some leading members of the Labour Party, including the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), have been highly critical of Her Majesty's judges and it strikes an ironic chord when the Opposition propose giving new powers to judges when, in other areas, such

  849
  as bringing the trade unions within the law, the last thing the Opposition want is that judges should be brought into play to operate the law and to ensure fairness and equity.
  The hollowness of the case made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West is contained in the assumption that we are dealing with civil or criminal action and that justice is being meted out and the scales of justice must be weighed. That is not the issue. The issue is the gift of citizenship to someone who, by definition, has another citizenship.
  Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that it does not matter if applicants for citizenship are treated unjustly?
  Mr. Whitney: Absolutely not, but I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that there is an important distinction and that his speech was powerful on the wrong premise. We are discussing the gift of citizenship by this country. The representatives of this country are the House and, therefore, the Government and it is justifiable that, when all the procedures and mechanisms have been gone through, the final repository of discretion should be the elected Government. It is not a question of declaring a person innocent or guilty. The Government will say "We are the guardians of British citizenship and we have the right to confer it or not to confer it."
  It is misleading to suggest that a criminal judgment is involved. It is, finally, a political judgment and it is right to leave it firmly in the hands of the elected representatives of the British people.
  Mr. Reg Race: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) referred to trade unions and I should like to use an analogy that he may find interesting. What would be the view of the Government and Conservative Back Benchers if trade unions introduced a rule allowing them to exclude any applicant for membership without providing any form of appeal?
  That parallel is relevant to the new clause. Conservative Members would table early-day motions, there would be editorials in the Daily Express and The Daily Telegraph and all hell would be let loose. But in arguments about citizenship the Government and most Conservative Members are silent and wish to introduce a system which will be grossly unfair to applicants who will not know the basis on which administrative decisions about them have been taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) referred to the possible confusion between people with the same surname who applied for naturalisation at different times. In my constituency there are many Greek Cypriots called Georgiou. As there is to be no appeal, no one will know whether, because of an administrative error, the Home Secretary has decided that the wrong Georgiou should be excluded from citizenship. That is one good reason for introducing an appeals system as set out in new clause 4. It would eliminate the simple confusions that can and, as has been acknowledged, do occur. When my hon. Friend the Member for York mentioned the matter, the Minister of State smiled in agreement as if he understood clearly what my hon. Friend was talking about, as I am sure he did.
  The number of people going through the naturalisation system will be increased when the Bill comes into force.
  850
  It is important therefore that the language test, if there is to be a language test at all, is seen to be fair and above board. It should also be a test against which one can appeal. Many people will be faced with a situation vastly different from that with which they have been faced in the past. A Greek Cypriot family, for instance, may have been living in this country since 1973 or before. They are citizens of Cyprus who may have come here as refugees following the Turkish invasion. The different generations of the family living in the same house will have acquired different standards of English.
  What happens when applications for naturalisation are submitted by the family as a whole? The children of the family, who may be attending school in this country, will presumably have an adequate grasp of the English language and will be able to satisfy any police officer or representative of the Home Secretary that they can meet the conditions for naturalisation. The parents may also be able to satisfy those conditions. A question may, however, arise over the position of the grandparents who possibly speak a preponderance of Greek or Turkish and use English only infrequently. They may find themselves on the margin of acceptability when the, police officer interviews the family.
  The children and the parents may be accepted for naturalisation while the grandparents are refused. That will cause enormous difficulties within the family. The interpretation by the police officer of the ability of an individual to converse properly in English should go before an independent appeal tribunal to enable a proper decision to be made.
  Another point about naturalisation exercises me greatly. A larger number of people will come within the naturalisation system as a result of the phasing out of the registration provision five years from the commencement of the British Nationality Act. Those who have spent a considerable period in this country will be faced with the hurdle of naturalisation. They include a large number who arrived in the 1950s, in the wave of immigration from new Commonwealth countries, holding passports of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When their country of origin subsequently became independent, they acquired a nationality that they did not know they had acquired by virtue of the independence orders passed by this House. Now they find that they are not United Kingdom citizens and that they will have to go through the naturalisation procedure. Their position is especially sensitive. If they are refused naturalisation without the Home Secretary giving any reason, they will feel very aggrieved about the manner in which the Home Secretary has carried out his functions.
  This is another example of the increased friction that the operation of the Bill will produce. An appeal system should therefore be introduced for people who feel aggrieved by the Home Secretary's decision. Feeling on this issue in my constituency and, I am sure, in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends, is running high. All those to whom I have spoken regard as completely indefensible a system whereby people cannot go to an independent body for redress and a review of their position. I therefore hope that new clause 4 will be accepted.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I shall be brief, because other important topics are to be debated this

  851
  evening. I resent the fact that our debate today and subsequently is to be truncated by the operation of the guillotine, as happened in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) made a surprising statement. He said that he regarded the grant of naturalisation as a political decision. I should think that nothing would justify the introduction of an appeals system against refusals more than the suspicion that naturalisation decisions were made on political grounds. Even in our long days in Committee, there was not one occasion when the Minister suggested that he would exercise his discretion on a political basis, and I hope that he will hotly deny that he has ever done so.
  Mr. Whitney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is not a question of political grounds. This is not a judgment between guilty and not guilty. It is within the gift of any Government, or the State, as represented in the House. It is not political in the narrow sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but in the sense that Governments have the gift of citizenship. Virtually all Governments have that gift. I should be interested if the hon. Gentleman could point to any Government who hand over this power beyond the realms of Government. That is not the narrow political point that the hon. Gentleman says it is.
  Mr. Dubs: It would be most alarming if a change of Minister at the Home Office were to result almost automatically in naturalisation decisions being made on different, though secret, grounds. Surely, individuals who seek to become British citizens and apply for naturalisation should not be subject to the whim of a particular Minister at the Home Office. That is why Labour Members object to the power being exercised in an arbitrary manner. I do not wish to dispute the semantics of what a political decision means. However, the description given by the hon. Member for Wycombe alarms me more than his original statement, because of the doubt that he casts on the process by which naturalisation decisions will be made.
  To be fair to the Minister, he attempted to suggest in Committee—he was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—that there was a semi-objective basis on which naturalisation would be granted. The hon. Gentleman discussed various types of criminal and other deviant behaviour, and whether such types of behaviour would automatically, or in certain circumstances, lead to naturalisation being refused. Having listened to what he said, I assume that the Home Office has worked out lists of criteria that it applies to any decision on naturalisation. It is then up to the individual Minister to decide whether the way in which the civil servants apply the criteria should be relevant in any case, or how the grey areas are dealt with.
  I concede this much to the hon. Member for Wycombe: it is obvious that the way in which discretion was exercised at the Home Office when my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was there was different from the way in which it is exercised now. Those of us who have studied the way in which some of the Home Office decisions were made know that. I suggest that that is not good enough. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for York agrees that it should not depend on the luck—from the point of view of the individual applying for naturalization—of
  852
  which Minister is sitting in the Home Office. There should be a more objective basis for the grant of naturalisation than exists at present.
  In Committee the Minister described the way in which the system worked—at least, he half described it. He said, for example, that sometimes people could work off a refusal and apply again in a number of years. In letters to constituents the Secretary of State has suggested that a two-year period should elapse before a person re-applies. That goes a little way towards meeting our argument. If a person can work off his bad character or improve his language in two years, he will have a reason to try to improve.
  In Committee the Minister said that people often had a shrewd idea of why they had been refused. I dispute that. The two-year period hinted at by the Home Office is some comfort, because it is better than a total refusal. However, the person will not know whether he should improve his language, his driving or his bank balance. The Minister has half conceded.
  The Minister sounded rather unhappy in Committee. He appeared to be defending a bad case, unless the case hangs almost entirely on the question of security. It has been suggested that the Secretary of State cannot give reasons for refusing in cases of bad character or language because that would reveal the handful of cases involving security. The Government's case rests almost entirely upon that. The case is thin. The Government have many opportunities to sift out security risks. I do not deny that such people exist, but they can be sifted out when they seek entry, or after entry if they are revealed to be security risks. They can be sifted out when they apply for naturalisation. It is not beyond the ability of the Home Office to delay applications in such circumstances. If a person is a security risk, he will know the reason for the refusal without the Home Office stating it. The Government are making much of a thin case. I hope that they will think again and accept the new clause.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: When we discussed this matter at length in Committee, we were told that the main reason for the Secretary of State's discretion was to deal with security cases and fraud, and when it is thought that applicants should defer applications for a year or two.
  My right hon. Friend must make his case strongly if we are to maintain the Secretary of State's discretion. It has been put to me that the issue is fundamental to the control of the operation of any discretionary power, since otherwise persons exercising such power can define the limits of that power. That is important for people who are affected by the exercise of the Secretary of State's power.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give the House more information about the security aspects which he has to consider and about the issues surrounding fraud and undesirable characters which must also be taken into account.
  The question whether there should be a right of appeal, such as that referred to in the new clause, needs to be considered in the context of whether its introduction would increase the confidence of the ethnic minority community, or whether it would undermine the security of the State or the ability of the Home Secretary to refuse a certificate of naturalisation to a person who may be an undesirable character because he or she may have been involved in some fraudulent business activity, or something of that nature.

  853
  One important point that arose in Committee, with which every hon. Member is familiar, is whether the procedure is adequate whereby an individual Member of Parliament acts as a channel of appeal to the Home Secretary. Some argue that it is not. My experience shows that Home Secretaries, both of my party and of the Labour Party, have the utmost consideration, take the greatest possible care in reaching their decisions and, generally speaking, inform me as the Member of Parliament concerned about the generality of the reasons for a refusal.
  I have always taken the view that my ability to represent the interests of a constituent gives the constituent the benefit of personal attention, of speed and also of my being able to raise the case not only with the Home Secretary but in debate in the House and, if necessary, to spotlight a certain case nationally in front of the press or television. All those factors are valuable.
  The view is held, and I must take account of it, that, although that channel may be valuable and although the ethnic minority community may accept that Members of Parliament act properly and take the greatest possible care to pursue their interests, some formalised procedure is necessary if justice is to be seen to be done. I suppose that that is the crux of the argument on an important matter.
  Hon. Members on both sides have said that such a procedure is fundamental to good, harmonious race relations, a matter in which I am greatly interested. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replies, I hope that he will clearly set out his position on the matter and say whether he believes that it is necessary to retain the existing system whereby the discretion of the Home Secretary is absolute, not subject to any inquiry and not subject to the giving of any reasons, or whether he believes that, because of the expressions of concern from both sides of the House, he should consider the matter again before the Bill becomes law.
  Those are my feelings about the matter. It is a serious and important issue which should receive the closest possible attention from Parliament, not only this evening but during the remainder of the Bill's passage through Parliament before it receives its Royal Assent. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say.
  9 pm
  Mr. Cryer: I wish to emphasise that it is about time we changed to some degree the character of our Government. We thrust on to Secretaries of State far too much work. We make them legally responsible for dozens of tasks by primary and subordinate legislation. For example, the Home Secretary issues warrants for telephone tapping and gives these his personal careful scrutiny. He issues several warrants a week. He is now to examine—presumably he does so already—applications for naturalisation. He has to give these applications his careful, detailed scrutiny and examination.
  We must recognise that in the present state of our nation the great burden of this work is carried out by the Civil Service. I have no doubt that many civil servants try to undertake the work with the utmost integrity and with the greatest efficiency. However, they are in a position to mount initiatives in taking decisions because Ministers are overloaded with work and because they have a great many statutory functions to undertake. At the end of the day only civil servants can sift through the many papers and give
  854
  their approval or rejection. In those circumstances decisions can be made that are hurried and that may be faulty. In the present circumstances, and by virtue of the legislation that is proposed, they will be secret decisions, without reasons given. They are therefore not accountable decisions.
  I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will say that he is accountable to the House and to Parliament. That is so much empty verbiage, in the context that we cannot possibly know what is going on and the reasons that lead him to make a decision. Unless we know those reasons we cannot possibly make him accountable to the House. It seems entirely reasonable that we should have some form of appeal that will bring to light the reasons that the Home Secretary is applying and will provide the right for a further scrutiny of his decision.
  I am not addressing these remarks to the present Home Secretary alone. There are other areas of Government where, because the inner Government and the massive Civil Service are used to doing things in the current way, it is convenient, in legislation, to embrace the Secretary of State and to obtain his decision. We should turn aside from the existing system to some degree, open out the decision making and provide a check not only here, where it is difficult to take up individual cases, but through the proposals that are set out in the new clause.
  Some Conservative Members have remarked on the fact that there are some who have been critical of judges. That does not mean that we cannot accept that there are judges who are able, and are men of integrity, who will use their best abilities. We recognise that as a general body the judiciary aims to apply the standard of justice that we would want to see applied to naturalisation cases as well as to other cases of a civil or criminal nature.
  Mr. Shersby: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House take the opportunity to raise matters that concern individual constituents in, for example, Adjournment debates. Such debates are valued by us all and by our constituents. They are a means of opening up individual cases and the Minister concerned has to reply in the House. One has to balance that against the flexibility of the system in which the Secretary of State has discretion, which is often exercised in favour of the applicant rather than against him.
  Mr. Cryer: There is a certain parallel with exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. Although one can raise individual cases in the House, as I and many other hon. Members have done, at the end of the day the Home Secretary does not have to advance reasons for the making of an exclusion order. He does not have to account for his actions. He merely says "The information that I have received justifies my decision". It is very much the same with applications for naturalisation. In my view the argument about security and prevention of terrorism cannot be attached to applications for naturalisation, and I would argue that orders under the prevention of terrorism legislation are not necessary.
  However, in this case, as in others, we must ensure that justice is seen to be done. It is not a slur on the Home Secretary's position to suggest that there should be some sort of appeal. It will give him that greater zeal in scrutiny in the midst of the enormous number of tasks that he must

  855
  perforce undertake. I should have thought that the new clause would add to the openness, quality and calibre of Government and that that was something that both sides of the House would welcome.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I recognise that this is an important debate. I also recognise that ultimately it affects me personally as the Home Secretary of the day. That is why I have been particularly anxious not only to reply, but—I hope that the House will at least give me credit for one thing—to hear every speech that has been made this afternoon. I regard that as my duty and I have carried out that duty. I do not complain that it has been a long debate. That is proper and right.
  I say at once to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that I do not rest my case on any argument that any Home Secretary should resent his decisions being examined in the House or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is right. The range of responsibilities inevitably means that the Home Secretary takes decisions under great pressures. Therefore, of course the Home Secretary welcomes that.
  I shall now turn to this particular case. I accept at once what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, that it has divided the House and that it is of great importance. I shall rest my case on the basis that I do not believe that a right of appeal, as proposed in the new clause, is compatible with the general principles underlying naturalisation as it has always existed in our law. That is the purport of my case. I am extremely sensitive to the arguments that it is important that the system devised should be fair and should be felt to be fair.
  I say "naturalisation" because the case is different with the provisions in our legislation which provide for registration as an entitlement—the decisions taken by the Secretary of State on such applications are not discretionary. If satisfied that the entitlement exists, the Secretary of State must grant the application. Since such decisions made by the Secretary of State are not discretionary, they are not covered by section 26 of the British Nationality Act, which would otherwise operate to preclude judicial review. This means that it would be possible—and it does occasionally happen—for an application to be made to the courts of judicial review of a decision to refuse a claimed entitlement to registration. The Bill would not change that situation. That is why I believe that in our arguments we should be concentrating our minds on naturalisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was right in what he said about naturalisation. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) was unfair in the way in which he put a political side to the argument.
  Naturalisation has always, in this as in many other countries, been within the gift of the State. It used to be a matter within the grant of the Sovereign. Later, powers to naturalise were exercised by Parliament. But it has long ceased to be practicable for naturalisation to be granted, except in very rare cases, by Act of Parliament. That is why discretion whether or not to grant naturalisation has been vested by Parliament in the Home Secretary since 1844.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that, in the nature of things, no one has a right to another country's citizenship. Therefore, many of
  856
  the arguments today about human rights and civil liberties miss the point. Naturalisation cannot be a right. Parliament can, of course, legislate to accord people entitlements if certain criteria are met, but in such instances Parliament is taking a conscious decision to limit the overall discretion that would otherwise reside in the Government of the day.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If it is impossible for citizenship to be given as a right, how can it be possible to acquire citizenship by registration as a right? The number of registrations is greater than the number of naturalisations.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I thought that I had made the case that registration is an entitilement and naturalisation is not. If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to consider what he says, but I believe that I made the point clear.
  The existence, therefore, of entitlement to registration in our nationality law does not affect my main contention, which is that people who are not our citizens can have no right to our citizenship. They will not, therefore, be able to acquire it except on the terms that Parliament lays down. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) fairly said, there is the problem of how to fit the new clause in with the criteria set down by Parliament.
  Before we can sensibly consider appeal rights, we must ask ourselves what terms Parliament should lay down for the acquisition of our citizenship by naturalisation. The Standing Committee considered that matter. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made some amusing comments on the criteria laid down and set forth by the Minister of State. However, I must come back to the point that it would be extremely difficult to decide what justiciable criteria should be laid down. It would cause great trouble in any possible appeal procedure. The Standing Committee decided at the end of the day that the decision whether the application should be granted should remain—this is our debate today—even when those criteria were met with the Secretary of State.
  The real problem is that it is simply not practicable to reconcile rights of appeal with the exercise of an absolute discretion. Some hon. Members have sought to have the best of both worlds, but I do not believe that it is possible. Whenever the appellate authority, whatever it be, takes a different view from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State's discretion in future is automatically fettered not only for that case but for any others like it that exhibit similar features. That would become inevitable. I tell hon. Members who would argue otherwise that, in truth, that argument is frequently put to me in many cases in which judicial decisions have been made.
  If we moved towards an appeal system, we should lose control of who should be allowed to obtain our citizenship. In certain circumstances—that is to say, where they could show that their cases were similar to cases that had succeeded on appeal—citizens of other countries would, in effect, be able to claim our citizenship as of right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said.
  The Green Paper published by the Labour Government made the same point. It basically said that a right of appeal could not be reconciled with a discretionary naturalisation system based on subjective tests of good character. I should like to quote from paragraph 60, which reads:
  "it is questionable whether it would be apt to have an appeals system if good character, assessed in each case by analysing all

  857
  the facts involved, were to remain the criterion for citizenship. The diversity encountered in application is very wide. The judgments which have to be made in this area are essentially subjective, and matters of this kind are not easily justiciable…Under the present system the standards applied in the generality of cases can be, and are, modified, and exceptions made to them, where this seems justified."
  I think that that Green Paper made two significant comments, and it lies at the heart of what I now wish to say about the relationship in this matter of the Secretary of State and the House.
  Mr. Clinton Davis rose——
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, but there are other debates to follow, so I must resist the temptation to give way. It has been a long debate and hon. Members have had the chance to make their points.
  Much has been said about the way in which we operate in the House and the control exercised on the Secretary of State which, after a long period in the House, I find surprising. I shall come to that in a moment.
  The Government believe that it is wrong to imagine that it would be possible to devise a system of objective tests which covered all possible eventualities. I do not believe that it would be possible. Of course, it has not so far been tried.
  The other point to note is that the present system. is flexible. Where Home Secretaries consider it justified, changes can be made to the way in which particular types of case should be considered, and individual cases can be
  treated exceptionally where there are exceptional factors.
  I was surprised to see the love for appeal tribunals that some hon. Members appear suddenly to have gained, because those same hon. Members frequently blame me unless I am prepared to exercise my discretion in cases which have already gone to appeal. I am greatly criticized if I do not do so. I could cite a number of cases—I can see some of the hon. Members involved in them—in which, if I had not had that discretion and the cases had been decided purely upon appeal, people who are in this country today would not have been here under the immigration rules. I am therefore interested to note that the House seems to have a new-found interest in appeal bodies that I had not witnessed up to now.
  I shall come to reasons later, as these are important matters and I have an important point to make. I must also say that I find it surprising to hear that hon. Members do not press the Secretary of State or the Minister of State or do not take up their constituents' cases with me. The number of cases taken up with me—and, inevitably, the much larger number taken up with the Minister of State—is considerable in relation to this subject. There are far more, I freely admit, on the subject of the application of immigration controls, but a large number of cases are put forward on this subject.
  If anyone imagines that it is always easy to give answers and to duck Adjournment debates, I must say that that is not my experience. When I receive letters from hon. Members and when cases are brought to me, I take a great deal of trouble.
  I must say in passing to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) that my attitude to the cases put forward by hon. Members is not formed on the
  858
  basis of whether I have acquired a liking for the hon. Member concerned. He seemed to suggest that some hon. Members did not take up constituents' cases unless they liked them. I found that a surprising admission, but that is what he said. I believe that it is important to take up every case on its merits and I must claim that that is certainly what I seek to do. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) how important I believe it is that the right exists for Members of Parliament to take up individual cases and to expect them to be treated exceptionally.
  The great case that I would argue is that the flexibility of the present system would be destroyed by an appeals system and I believe that that would make it very much more difficult than at present.
  I should not like to examine the case for an appeal system in practical terms and also some of the practical difficulties of setting one up. Once again, the Green Paper published by the Labour Government, in paragraph 59, said:
  "Admittedly, a decision to refuse citizenship usually has little immediate impact on the everyday life of the applicant; it does not affect his ability to stay in this country, and he is free, for instance, to own property. But refusal might prevent someone from entering a post, such as those in the Civil Service, which is restricted to those holding certain nationalities. A right of appeal would offer some help in such a case."
  The occupations concerned are normally open to Commonwealth citizens and, under our present law, to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, the potential hardship is confined to foreign nationals.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: No.
  Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute something that I am stating as a fact, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am disputing the right hon. Gentleman's point, because I have personal experience of it. It is not only the chap himself who can be put at a disadvantage, but also his children. My father was refused naturalisation after living 30 blameless years in this country. Although I was born here, I was put at a disadvantage in several ways. For example, I was held to be ineligible for the Royal Navy.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I was about to say that the range of occupations concerned is relatively narrow. With his usual considerable skill, the hon. Gentleman has caught me out. I was about to say that that range of occupations included the Armed Forces, the police and the Bank of England as well as that of master or owner of a British ship. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a refusal of naturalisation has not caused difficulty in any but the most exceptional cases. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's case. If anyone intends to join one of the Services mentioned, and has been accepted subject to his acquiring our citizenship, we do our best to give consideration of his case priority so that we do not stand in his way, or in that of the Service concerned.
  Mr. Mikardo: I had citizenship. I was British by birth.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am becoming slightly confused as to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman said that the limitations put on those refused naturalisation were small. Until I told him about it, he was not conscious of the fact

  859
  that some limitations are put on the children of those who are refused naturalisation, although they are themselves British.
  Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman says so, I must believe him. However, I am surprised to hear it. It is difficult to see how that could be so in relation to occupations and particular categories of job.
  Mr. Edward Lyons rose——
  Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that I referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman, so I shall give way.
  Mr. Lyons: The British-born sons of Poles in my constituency cannot get into the Navy. I take up every case that is brought to me, but people have brought me cases because other hon. Members would not take them up. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one should take up every case.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. When one examines the total refusals of naturalisation over the past 10 years one finds that they are not large in number, either absolutely or as a percentage of the total. The figures were given in Committee and were discussed again this afternoon. The number of refusals comes, on average, to just under 10 per cent. a year over the last five years. I should not have thought that those facts showed a practical need for a right of appeal.
  In many of the cases refused, such a right would be wholly uncalled for. A person who was refused on the grounds that he had failed to meet statutory residence requirements—the commonest reason for refusal—should be able to bring himself within those requirements without exercising an expensive right of appeal. I understand some of the anxiety expressed, but I believe that the same goes for those who have an insufficient knowledge of the language. In many cases, those involved make themselves more proficient in the language and are later naturalised. Therefore, that is a fair point about appeal.
  In the two examples that I have just mentioned—failure to meet the residence requirements and insufficient knowledge of English—we would usually give the reasons for our decisions, and should do so. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said that the Home Office never gave the reasons. That is inaccurate. I hope she will realise that I know because I have on occasion given some of the reasons myself. It is right that in those circumstances reasons should be given, and I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and in another context by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
  There is a difficulty—I come back to what was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—in informing an applicant that he is a security risk. I believe that there would be substantial difficulties arising from the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a warrant to an appeal tribunal, for the question whether a Home Secretary was justified in giving that warrant could then be argued at considerable length. It would become very difficult for the Home Secretary in many cases to do more than get back into the original position. He would have to say that he could not give reasons, other than security, for the warrant that he had granted. There is a problem here and I find it difficult to see how it would be possible to give reasons in the
  860
  security cases. I admit that there are not a great many of them and I would not wish to make too much of the security point, but it is clearly there.
  With regard to good character, references are asked for, and the main method of proceeding is to follow up the references, such as those which hon. Members will from time to time have given in the cases of their own constituents. We should give reasons whenever we possibly can, and I take the point made by the House in this respect. It is most important. I doubt whether there are many cases in which the applicant is in much doubt as to the reason for refusal in his case.
  Against this background, the House should look very seriously at whether the extra costs of an appeal system would be justified. I would not rest my whole case on that aspect, but one has to look at that as well. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that new clause 4 is probably the most expensive of the available options. However, I do not wish to make too much of that, because I am against an appeals system on principle in regard to naturalisation.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made an important speech. He said that the idea of an appeal tribunal would be welcomed by everyone, including the judiciary. I have grave doubts whether that would be the case, because it would place a heavy load on an already overburdened judiciary; no one could deny that. In reading the references to judges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and Court of Session, he will surely agree that the degree of judicial eminence that is sought for the system would be excessive for its purpose. I do not believe that it would be sound. I do not believe that a right of appeal in this regard would work, for the reasons that I have given to the House.
  At the same time, I hope that I have also made it clear to the House that I believe that it is important that reasons should be given whenever possible, and that the administration of the discretion, supervised by this House, should be seen to be fair. It is my job, if I believe that it is the best way in which to proceed in regard to naturalisation, to make sure that it is seen to be fair.
  I do not believe that a formal right of appeal would be appropriate, because of the nature of the decision that would be challenged. That decision is of such a kind that only Parliament should be in a position to question the Home Secretary's use of his discretion. To say that one is answerable to Parliament is not an empty phrase. I should be surprised if many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who press me on different occasions would claim that it was so. I am answerable to Parliament when there is maladministration. That takes up the point in regard to the argument about civil servants that we have heard. today. Parliament has its Commissioner for Administration, the Ombudsman, to investigate cases which are referred to him.
  The system in regard to naturalisation is the only workable one. It is right and sensible. I recognise that it is my responsibility to make sure that it works fairly. That I undertake to the House I shall do. On that basis I ask the House to reject the new clause.
  9.30 pm
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 290.

  Division No. 195]

  [9.30 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Foster, Derek

  Adams, Allen

  Foulkes, George

  Allaun, Frank

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ginsburg, David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Graham, Ted

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bradley, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Haynes, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

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

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Hooley, Frank

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

  Horam, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Howells, Geraint

  Canavan, Dennis

  Huckfield, Les

  Cant, R. B.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cook, Robin F.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Cowans, Harry

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cryer, Bob

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kerr, Russell

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

  Lambie, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dempsey, James

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Dixon, Donald

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dormand, Jack

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Douglas, Dick

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McKelvey, William

  Dubs, Alfred

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McNally, Thomas

  Dunn, James A.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunnett, Jack

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Magee, Bryan

  Eadie, Alex

  Marks, Kenneth

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

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

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  English, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Ewing, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Field, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Fitt, Gerard

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ford, Ben

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  862

  Morton, George

  Stallard, A. W.

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stoddart, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Parker, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Parry, Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Penhaligon, David

  Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Tilley, John

  Prescott, John

  Tinn, James

  Race, Reg

  Torney, Tom

  Radice, Giles

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wainwright. R. (Colne V)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Watkins, David

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Weetch, Ken

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Welsh, Michael

  Rooker, J. W.

  White, Frank R.

  Roper, John

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Whitlock, William

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ryman, John

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

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Sever, John

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

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Winnick, David

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Woodall, Alec

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wright, Sheila

  Skinner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ancram, Michael

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

  Arnold, Tom

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Banks, Robert

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

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Best, Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cope, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Corrie, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Blackburn, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Blaker, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Body, Richard

  Crouch, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Dover, Denshore

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dunlop, John

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Brittan, Leon

  Durant, Tony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brotherton, Michael

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Eggar, Tim

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Buck, Antony

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Budgen, Nick

  Farr, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fell, Anthony

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Butcher, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  863

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marland, Paul

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

  Marlow, Tony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Forman, Nigel

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Fox, Marcus

  Mather, Carol

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mawby, Ray

  Fry, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mellor, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Roger

  Gow, Ian

  Molyneaux, James

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Monro, Hector

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Moore, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hannam, John

  Myles, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Needham, Richard

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Tony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Onslow, Cranley

  Heddle, John

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Henderson, Barry

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hill, James

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Parris, Matthew

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Hooson, Tom

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hordern, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

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

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pollock, Alexander

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Knox, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Lamont, Norman

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Latham, Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lee, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Loveridge, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Luce, Richard

  Rost, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacGregor, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

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

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Major, John

  Shersby, Michael

  864

  Silvester, Fred

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Speed, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Waddington, David

  Spence, John

  Wakeham, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Squire, Robin

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Stainton, Keith

  Wall, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stevens, Martin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stokes, John

  Wheeler, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Tapsell, Peter

  Whitney, Raymond

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tebbit, Norman

  Williams, D. (Montgomeiy)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Donald

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Trippier, David

  and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

  RIGHTS OF REGISTRATION
  `Any person who is a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of Pakistan or the wife of such a citizen shall be entited on application for his registration as a British citizen, to be registered as such a citizen if he satisfies the Secretary of State that he was settled in the United Kingdom at commencement'. —[Mr. Tilley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Tilley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I intend to be brief. I recognise that hon. Members wish to proceed to later clauses. The issue was discussed in Committee, but the Opposition felt that it should be brought before the whole House on Report. Our wish is that the right to register should remain for those for whom it exists at the moment. We believe that new nationality law should be approached from the principle of preserving the accrued rights that Commonwealth citizens and their wives already possess. Our approach is that no one should lose rights that are already available.
  The loss of right to register is the issue that has created the most fear, resentment and concern in the black community. The Opposition see this part of the Bill as a racialist provision. The vast majority of those who lose the right to register as British citizens are black. The Government originally planned a period of grace of two years for the loss of right to registration. As a result of pressure by the Opposition, by organisations outside the House, and a mild revolt by some Conservative Back Benchers, the Government extended the period to five years. Even the longer period is nowhere near enough.
  Once the period of grace—whether it is two years or five years—is over, those who are now eligible to become British citizens as of right will have to go through the process of naturalisation. Some indication was given in the

  865
  previous debate about the problems posed for people going through the process of naturalisation. It is important to contrast the process of naturalisation with the registration process that exists at present.
  Naturalisation takes much longer. Parliamentary answers have revealed a difference between 25 months and nine months. The cost of naturalisation is three times higher than registration and may soon be even greater. Registration costs £50, whereas naturalisation costs £150, and there has been every indication from the Government that the cost will soon be £200 or more.
  Most important is the degree of uncertainty for those applying for naturalisation. There will be the subjective test, whereby a civil servant or the Minister decides that applicants are of good character. There is also the language test, with all its deficiencies. In many cases no reason will be given for a refusal to grant naturalisation. Nor is there any appeal against a refusal by the Home Secretary. It is a secret, arbitrary lengthy and costly process compared with the automatic right of registration for 500,000 adult Commonwealth citizens in this country. This figure will be increased when those who are not yet adults acquire the right on reaching the age of majority. A large proportion of the community in this country will therefore be affected when the right is lost.
  Our amendment includes not only Commonwealth citizens but citizens of Pakistan, despite the fact that they are covered by the Pakistan Act 1974. The stark contrast between what happened when Pakistan left the Commonwealth and when South Africa left the Commonwealth was revealed in Committee. South Africans received eight years and seven months in which to decide whether to register as British citizens, or as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as it was then, if they so wished. People from Pakistan, resident in this country, were given a little over one year. That seemed to the Opposition a stark and unfair contrast, which we consider should be put right by the new clause.
  The large number of people whom we are discussing came to this country before 1973 and have therefore been resident here for five years. They have worked here and paid taxes here for a long time. They have observed our laws for a long time. They are entitled to expect that rights that they at present enjoy should not be removed by the Bill.
  The Government and their supporters ask "Why have these people not made up their minds about registering? They will have had a lot of time before the commencement of the Act, and they will have time—five years now—after." There are two answers to that perfectly fair question. One is that many of these people do not know that they are not entitled automatically to become British citizens on commencement. They are not aware that they are no longer United Kingdom and Colonies passport holders. Many of the people—particularly West Indians—came in the 'fifties and early 'sixties from the West Indies in response to this country's need for workers. Many of them came in the 'forties, in response to this country's need, to fight in the Second World War. They came at a time when the islands that they left were part of the British Empire, and they came on United Kingdom and Colonies passports. They have kept those passports. They
  866
  regard themselves as still being full United Kingdom and Colonies passport holders—as they see it, full British citizens.
  Since that time, the islands that they came from have become independent. By the independence Acts passed by the House, all those people, whether they came from Trinidad, Jamaica or Guyana, became citizens of the independent countries from which they came. Neither this Government nor any previous Governments bothered to inform them that they were no longer citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  Only when they apply for a passport—sometimes years later—to visit Europe, or to visit the island from which they came, do they discover that they are no longer eligible for United Kingdom and Colonies passports. They have not had many years in which to make up their minds. The Governments who took away their rights never told them that they were no longer eligible.
  Secondly, many of those people have not had a long time because some of the colonies—again, I speak of the West Indies—have only recently acquired independence. St. Lucia and St. Vincent acquired independence only in 1979. People from those islands have had a registration right that they have not taken up for the past two years. Antigua is likely to become independent later this year. So it will be only after enactment of this Bill that Antiguans will no longer be United Kingdom and Colonies passport holders and therefore eligible for the rights of registration that the Government seek to take away from them.
  In answering the question why people have not made up their minds, we should put the counter question, which the Government failed to answer in Committee: why do they go to the trouble of taking rights away from these people, thereby adding to the insecurity that they already feel because some sections of the community do not welcome them here? The Government should say why they have taken this studied objection to the idea of special relationships with the Commonwealth that is enshrined in earlier legislation, that Commonwealth citizens who are resident here and legally settled should be able to become British citizens more easily and more cheaply than aliens.
  We have shown that it creates resentment among those who have proved their attachment to our country by working and, in some cases, fighting for this country over a generation. They suddenly find that they are not British citizens and that they have no right to become such. As we heard in the last debate, it is in the gift of the Government, and the Government are determined to be unaccountable in the granting of that gift.
  There are apprehensions about the future. Many Commonwealth citizens resident here fear that once the period of grace is over their current civic and voting rights will be taken away. It is the thin end of the wedge. The Government's action is unnecessary. There is no longer an argument for having only one method of obtaining citizenship—by naturalisation. In Committee the Government said that there would be citizenship by registration for the foreseeable future for another class of people. Naturalisation and registration are the two systems. Why will not the Government allow the people who now have the right to register under the law—mainly middle-aged or elderly black people who have given half or more of their working lives to this country—to keep their right to register as British citizens for the rest of their lives?
  Mr. J. Enoch PowellIn the course of the debate that the House has just completed the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) put to the Home Secretary a question which I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman understood. Certainly, he did not answer it. The answer to the question appears to be germane to the new clause. The question that the hon. Gentleman asked was: "Why do we have a distinction between naturalisation to which there is no right and registration to which almost everywhere in the Bill there is a right denoted by the typical use of the word `entitlement'?" If one answers that question, one answers the question posed by the new clause.
  In 1948, when we last legislated for British nationality, we in Britain still regarded the status of British subject as the essential status. It is true that in order to conform with what was happening in the rest of the Commonwealth, and particularly with what had happened already in the Dominion of Canada, we altered the basis of our citizenship from that of allegiance to that of citizenship. We created a citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies which would for us be the gate of access, as it were, to the real status of British subject, just as for the other countries of the Commonwealth their citizenships in the terms of the 1948 Act were their access, as we saw it, to the status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen.
  The essential status, therefore—and this was the thinking behind the Act 33 years ago—was that of British subject. That was the mark of our nationality and the criterion for the exercise of the typical rights and duties of those who owned a nationality. We are now deliberately, after 33 years, reversing that. It is now to be citizenship that has reality. Although there will be some vestiges in our law, some of them quite important, of Commonwealth citizen—alas, British subject is virtually abolished by the Bill—we are now focusing upon the citizenship of the United Kingdom as the reality of our status and our nationality.
  Admission to that, therefore, constitutes naturalisation. That is what the House was debating essentially during the debate that has just concluded. However, a transition is still to be made, from the point of view of 1948 and all that, to our new point of view whereby nationality is citizenship, and not the worldwide British subject. Therefore, there exists a quasi-nationality, that of the citizens of the different countries of the Commonwealth and, indeed, of some that have ceased to be part of the Commonwealth—which 20 or 30 years ago were still of the essence——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Animal Health Bill[Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen].

  British Nationality Bill
  Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a second time.
  Mr. Powell: I was saying that 20 or 30 years ago the citizens of those countries were still of the essence of our national status. In making this change, almost an inversion, we must provide a transition. Registration, in the context of the new clause, is essentially transitional. It is transitional from British subject or Commonwealth citizen as the basic status to citizen of the United Kingdom as the basic status.
  In a recognition of the fact that there is that transition we allow time—in the Bill it is usually set at five years—for those who have hitherto had a status equated with our own to be able to give reality to that old equation. But it is an old equation, which it is in the Bill's purpose to abolish. Therefore, the new clause runs essentially counter to the purpose and principle, as I understand them, of the Bill.
  There is no limit of time upon the facilities provided in the new clause. The whole argument put forward by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) is that we should recognise, and in the terms of the new clause recognise permanently, that special relationship. The special relationship that existed in 1948 has now become so tenuous as to be scarcely perceptible. It is now only a relationship between independent nations—our own on the one part and more than 30 on the other—whose recognition and status as independent nations are, tc some extent, owed to the work and the legislation of the House.
  The Opposition are asking, through the new clause, essentially for a negation of the purpose of the Bill. They are asking for the equivocal or obsolete equation of Commonwealth citizen and British national to be maintained indefinitely and, in the case of nationals of Pakistan who are not within the Commonwealth, to be artificially extended.
  In a sense the clause could be described almost as a wrecking clause. It has its uses, perhaps, in that it helps by lucendo lucus a non lucendo to illuminate the purpose and the reality of what we are bringing about by the nature of the Bill, namely, giving ourselves a national status in the United Kingdom which hitherto, in both the Commonwealth and the world, we have lacked in law.
  Mr. Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Not for the first time, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is an unusual feature, however, that we disagree about the factual history of how the position has arisen. We would both agree that in 1948 Parliament missed a great opportunity to settle the issue of British citizenship when other Commonwealth countries decided that they would take citizenship. We would both agree that from that major error has flown much of the difficulties in administering a sensible, just and humane immigration policy. We may disagree about what the policy should be, but we agree that that major fault has lain behind the sorry spectacle of successive immigration Acts.
  However, on this issue I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in error. We are not getting rid of British subjecthood in the Bill. We got rid of British subjecthood in 1948. We decided in 1948 that there would not be universal subjecthood. We used the term "Commonwealth citizenship", but it had no real meaning. The real meaning was attached to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  Those who did not have that citizenship when they came here, even though they were Commonwealth citizens, were entitled to claim the type of citizenship that we enjoyed. We created a new system of acquiring citizenship called registration, which was different from naturalisation which applied to aliens. Aliens had to ensure that they were of good character, that they could speak English and that they had been here for a certain time. I think that in those days it was one year, but the period was extended to five years.
  Registration was automatic after a year in those days, but the period was extended to five years. However, registration was automatic for Commonwealth citizens after that period of residence until the inception of the Immigration Act 1971, when registration was made subject to the same test as naturalisation—namely, good character and the language test. If a person came here after 1973 from the Commonwealth, he had to be here for five years, he had to be of good character and he had to be able to speak English sufficiently well to make a police officer understand. If we accept the new clause, we shall go back on the position that has obtained since 1973.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) introduced his new clause, I understood him to say that we should keep the automatic right to registration which existed in 1973 and which existed for those who came before 1973. That was the case we argued in Committee.
  I am glad that the new clause was drafted as it appears before us. In my view, this is the most important issue that we shall discuss on Report. Equally, it was the most important issue that we could have discussed in Committee. That is because the Bill affects us all. For the great majority of us who are by definition under the 1971 Act patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it occasions not very much difference from our existing position.
  The Government's purpose in drafting the Bill has been to ensure that patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies retain all their present rights. That reassurance can be given to 95 per cent. of the population. the majority of the population are casually indifferent to the Bill.
  870
  However, for 5 per cent. of the population the Bill is a threat to their status and they wonder what it will mean for them.
  The Minister says that undue alarm has been fermented among minority groups by those who are encouraging them to believe that something that is not in the Bill may be true. It is equally true that there are provisions in the Bill that have caused justifiable alarm in the minority community. I am sure that the Minister will accept that all the alarm, irrespective of whether it is justifiable, exists among about 5 per cent. of the population. They are worried about what the Bill will mean for them.
  If the new clause were accepted, that anxiety could be allayed on a wide scale. That would mean that anyone who has settled here—that would be most of the 5 per cent.—regardless of whether he came before 1973 or after 1973 or whether he came from the new Commonwealth as it is now constituted or from Pakistan, would be entitled to register automatically as a citizen of the United Kingdom. Such persons would not even have to have a period of residence. If they were here two months, they would be able to register as citizens on the commencement of this measure.
  When I was first asked to consider nationality when I was a Minister, my view was that we should give citizenship automatically to everyone who was settled here, because that would have the reassuring effect for which I am arguing here. I was dissuaded from suggesting that because it meant for some people, such as those from India, who could not have dual nationality, that their rights as nationals in another country would have been taken away by the automatic nature of the Act when they might not have wished that. Therefore, it would be wrong automatically to make them British citizens if, for various reasons, they did not want to become British citizens.
  The new clause meets that point. It says that it will be left to the individual to decide. Surely, that is the most effective way which we could devise for reassuring the minority community that their rights, entitlements and wishes to be a stable part of our community are safeguarded under the Bill.
  If we were to pass the new clause, much of the anxiety which has been generated in this country about the Bill would be alleviated. For that reason, I suspect that we shall not pass it. It would go further than the Minister has wanted to go. However, the truth is that it would not hurt anyone if we passed it. Those people are settled here. That means that unless they commit an offence they cannot be sent away.
  It is true that if those people went out of the country for more than two years they would lose that entitlement. However, they can safeguard that position by not going out of the country for more than two years. The fact is—it may be against what some hon. Members wish—that those people will remain here until the day they die if they want to do so. If that is so and they are working here, paying taxes and are part of the community, why on earth should we not allow them to become citizens here? Why should we not give them the automatic right which is included in the clause?
  It would be reassuring for race relations in this country if those people could choose to be identified with us and to become part of our country. The right hon. Member for Down, South is always saying that they do not wish to do so. Here is yet another hon. Member who will say the same thing.
  Mr. Mr. Nick Budgen: It would be much easier for those people if we did not retain a system of dual nationality.
  Mr. Lyon: I shall be happy to argue the case on dual nationality when we come to that clause, which I think is about to be called.
  If we pass the new clauses, those people would have the right to choose to become British citizens. It would be up to them whether they wanted so to choose. We shall come to the issue about dual nationality in due course. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that.
  If we want to put an end to the uncertainty in race relations in this country, this is the most effective way of doing that. I hope that the House will accept the clause.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: The provision in the Bill which the new clause is designed to counteract provides that wives of British citizens shall be able to obtain British citizenship as of right without having to pass a language test or having to go through other paraphernalia. The effect of the Bill is to say for the first time—it was not so in 1948—that if wives who are in this country do not apply within five years of the date of the Act, they will have to pass a language test.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have the wrong new clause.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Mr. Lyons: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I have. It refers to the wives of citizens of the Commonwealth or Pakistan who
  "shall be entitled on application for …registration as a British citizen,"
  provided that were settled in the United Kingdom at commencement. It covers clauses 5 and 7 and includes wives who are already settled here. They are given five years in which to apply for British citizenship.
  Wives have always had the right to obtain citizenship by registration. That right will be withdrawn unless they comply with the requirements within five years. They have an accrued right. In Committee, the Government did not suggest that Britain had come to harm through wives of British citizens being able to obtain citizenship by registration.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out, if the Government attack an accrued right the suspicion arises that such rights are not sacrosanct. It is unsatisfactory for the Government to take away such a right.
  The Government's original proposal in Committee was for a two-year grace period. As a result of an amendment tabled in the names of two Conservative Members and myself and supported by the official Opposition, the Government increased the period to five years. More than that, the Opposition, of virtually all shades, did not want the Government to take away any accrued rights. My amendment to extend the period to eight years was defeated.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it not perhaps be helpful for the hon. and learned Gentleman to inform hon. Members who have not read the full proceedings in Standing Committee that an amendment in my name that would have preserved the accrued rights of all wives permanently was thrown out?
  Mr. Mr. Lyons: The House has heard the right hon. Gentleman.
  The new clause works mainly against wives. Since 1973, Commonwealth citizens who have come here have had to pass a language test, so there are fewer of them left to apply for British citizenship. Wives who have come here up to 1981 at present have the right to apply for citizenship and get it automatically if their husbands are British. Those who come here after the Bill becomes law will not have that right, and those who have the right and have not made use of it will have it taken away from them after five years.
  At one time, the Government considered two years appropriate. That was the magic figure, although for South Africans it was eight years. They now agree that five years is appropriate. With the numbers involved, and accepting that accrued rights should remain, the Government should reconsider the matter and allow permanent rights to obtain citizenship to those who have an accrued right. Failing that, they should bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords to increase the limit from five to eight or 10 years.
  If the Government interfere with accrued rights of minority groups in one respect, people will suspect that they may interfere with other accrued rights upon which they depend for their security.
  Mr. Raison: In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) seemed to argue that the purpose of the new clause was to remedy the loss of the indefinite right to register by certain groups, namely Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and their wives. The new clause, however, goes well beyond that and would open up a whole new category of entitlement. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, in some ways it would be a negation of the purpose of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) seemed to recognise that the new clause went far beyond what the hon. Member of Lambeth, Central implied but argued that we should nevertheless accept it on the ground that it would end the alarm that he believed had been created by the fact that the indefinite right to register would no longer exist. I cannot accept that argument. I believe that the alarm will die away as people understand the true nature of the legislation and that the claim is a temporary phenomenon largely produced by propaganda. I believe that as people come to live with the Act they will see the rubbish that has been talked about it for the rubbish that it is.
  The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that in these matters it is not enough to think only of the interests of the ethnic minorities. They are very important, of course, and we have shown in Committee that we understand them because we have taken certain steps—not always popular ones—specifically designed to meet their anxieties. Nevertheless, I believe that if the new clause were accepted it would arouse a good deal of resentment among other people in the population and would not necessarily serve the cause of race relations in the way that the hon. Gentleman argued.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister has again raised the question of propaganda, with the implication that certain individuals may be attempting to mislead certain groups. I must point out again that that is not so. If there is

  873
  misunderstanding, it is not all on one side. An academic born in Sri Lanka has recently been made chairman of a prominent Conservative group. It may be the Bow Group. He is under a total misapprehension about the Bill, because he really believes that it will affect the rights of Commonwealth citizens resident in this country to become Members of Parliament or serving officers in the British Army. If misunderstandings of that kind exist in the Minister's own party, how does he intend to clear them up?
  Mr. Mr. Raison: I dare say that there are misunderstandings in my own party. I do not deny that for a moment. I know that the Bill, like all previous nationality legislation, is complicated. I never sought to conceal that throughout the Committee stage. My argument is that, with time, people will increasingly understand it and know the truth as opposed to the fiction of the matter and will come to recognise it as a statute of major importance that is completely fair and just.
  The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central asked why we should take away these indefinite rights. On this, I echo what I said earlier to my hon. Friends in relation to amendment No. 89 because some of the arguments that I put then, although my hon. Friends did not entirely go along with them, apply in the same way to this issue.
  The argument is essentially this. We believe that in due course we should move to a new scheme for the granting or award—however one likes to describe it—of citizenship. We believe that there should be a new structure for citizenship. That, in its essence, although not in its whole, means moving towards a system of naturalisation. If we maintain the existing situation indefinitely, we shall put off well into the next century the day when we arrive at the state of affairs which we believe to be right in this matter.
  Both in the case of consular registration—which we argued about earlier—and in the case of entitlement to registration of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and of wives, we have adopted the view that it is right to have a five-year transitional period, during which the existing entitlements continue. In the case of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and of wives, that gives a fair opportunity to anyone who wishes to acquire citizenship. The five-year period will begin only at commencement. There will be a period between now and commencement. In addition, in almost every case such people have already had a substantial period in which to exercise that entitlement to register. Therefore, they are being given a fair opportunity. When we changed the extension from two years to five years we seemed finally to put paid to the argument that there was something unsatisfactory about the measure. On that point, we are acting entirely fairly.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That argument would be understandable if the Minister had not introduced a new clause in Committee which gave an automatic right to citizenship—after five years—to citizens of dependent territories, British overseas citizens and British protected persons who have not yet arrived in Britain. Surely that undermines the hon. Gentleman's basic argument that we must create a symmetrical new edifice for the future.
  Mr. Raison: We took a different view about citizens of the British dependent territories and others who fell
  874
  within the category of British citizenship, because they are slightly different. We are talking about Commonwealth citizens. We have close historic links with Commonwealth citizens, which we are anxious to preserve. Nevertheless, there was something special about the citizens of the British dependent territories. We saw a distinction between their status and that of Commonwealth citizens.
  The new clause would mean that any Commonwealth citizen or citizen of Pakistan settled here immediately before commencement would be entitled for the rest of his or her life to British citizenship—and the right of abode in this country—on application whenever he or she chose. Where the person settled here was a man. his wife would also have an entitlement to British citizenship, and possibly—although I am not quite clear about the meaning of the clause—even if she had never been to this country. The children born abroad to such a person, after he or she had acquired British citizenship, would be British citizens too, and would have the right of abode here.
  The measure would extend our citizenship and the right of abode very widely indeed. Any concept of a meaningful citizenship based on a real tie with this country would be very greatly diluted, particularly since a Commonwealth citizen, or citizen of Pakistan, settled here at commencement could have been resident here for only a limited time—in some cases, such as dependants, only a very limited time indeed. Provided that the citizen was settled at commencement, he could re-enter freely—for however long he might go away—for the rest of his life.
  These arrangements are far more generous than those which other Commonwealth countries, to which people from this country might wish to go, would be prepared to extend. They are in many respects more generous than those for Commonwealth citizens in the British Nationality Act 1948, as originally introduced, and which reflected a very different relationship between this country and the members of the Commonwealth and Pakistan from that which prevails now.
  As the hon. Member for York said, the British Nationality Act 1948 has in fact already been amended so that apart from those who are patrial, the only Commonwealth citizens who are currently entitled to registration are those who have been settled here since before 1973. In a sense, the amendment seeks to turn the clock back by conferring a similar entitlement on those who have been accepted for settlement since 1973, provided that they are still settled at commencement.
  We have sought in clause 6 to ensure that those Commonwealth citizens who are settled here at commencement and who have an entitlement to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, should have these preserved for a transitional period, but it would not be right to go beyond this.
  I turn to the position of people who lost their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the dependency from which they came became independent. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central raised this point. I accept that there will be some people settled here from former dependencies who will have lost citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the dependencies from which they came here achieved independence. Others will lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if their dependencies become independent before the commencement of the Bill. Such people would not have been able to register before independence since they would have been citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies

  875
  already. Since losing that citizenship, however, I accept that they will have had less time in which to exercise their entitlement to register than those citizens of independent Commonwealth countries settled here since before 1973.
  10.30 pm
  The extension of the transitional period in which Commonwealth citizens with an entitlement to register may claim that entitlement will have greatly helped those people. That is one of the reasons why the Government accepted the amendment that lengthened the transitional period. It means that everyone from a Commonwealth country that achieves independence before commencement will, if settled here since before 1973, have five years at least in which to register. Those who are not settled before 1973 can still count any time here towards the qualifying period for naturalisation.
  This leaves countries that achieve independence after commencement. It has hitherto been the effect of successive independence Acts that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who acquire the new citizenship lose our citizenship, and with it the right of abode here, if they have it. Clearly, the implications of the Bill will need careful thought when it comes to legislating for independence after the new nationality legislation comes into force, but the precise arrangements to be made can best be considered in the context of the independence legislation.
  The question that the House has to answer is why all those settled CUKC or Commonwealth people here should have the automatic right to citizenship on commencement. It is not a question of simply continuing an existing entitlement. It is true that they have shown that they want to be here by virtue of the fact that they are settled here, although often for only a short while, but they do not meet the other criteria that we think appropriate for the granting of citizenship. They have no necessary intention to remain here, they will not have passed the language test, they will not have met the behaviour test and, in the case of Pakistanis, they will not have belonged to the Commonwealth for getting on for a decade. In many cases they will have been here for only a very short time.
  All that does not add up to the kind of commitment to this country for which we are essentially looking in the conferment of citizenship, so the case for what would be a uniquely privileged position has not been made out by the Opposition, and I call on the House to reject new clause 5.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 289.

  Division No. 196]

  [10.32 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cant, R. B.

  Ashton, Joe

  Carmichael, Neil

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cartwright, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Cook, Robin F.

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Cowans, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Craigen, J. M.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

  876

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Dempsey, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dewar, Donald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dixon, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dobson, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Dormand, Jack

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Douglas, Dick

  McNally, Thomas

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dubs, Alfred

  McTaggart, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  Dunn, James A.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

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

  Maxton, John

  English, Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Meacher, Michael

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ewing, Harry

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Field, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ford, Ben

  Morton, George

  Forrester, John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Foster, Derek

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Freud, Clement

  Palmer, Arthur

  Garrett, John(Norwich S)

  Parker, John

  George, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Penhaligon, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Graham, Ted

  Race, Reg

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Radice, Giles

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Richardson, Jo

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Haynes, Frank

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rooker, J. W.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roper, John

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

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

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

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Home Robertson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hooley, Frank

  Ryman, John

  Horam, John

  Sandelson, Neville

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Sever, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Sheerman, Barry

  Huckfield, Les

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Soley, Clive

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Kerr, Russell

  Stoddart, David

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  877

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Whitlock, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

  Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Tilley, John

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

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Winnick, David

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Woodall, Alec

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Wright, Sheila

  Watkins, David

  Young, David(Bolton E)

  Weetch, Ken

  Welsh, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, Frank R.

  Mr. James Tinn

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  and Mr. James Hamilton.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunlop, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ancram, Michael

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Arnold, Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Emery, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bendall, Vivian

  Farr, John

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fell, Anthony

  Best, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Blackburn, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Blaker, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Body, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Marcus

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fry, Peter

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brittan, Leon

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brotherton, Michael

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gorst, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Buck, Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Budgen, Nick

  Gray, Hamish

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hannam, John

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Paul

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

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Heddle, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Henderson, Barry

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, John

  Hill, James

  Corrie, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th"m)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hooson, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

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

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dover, Denshore

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  878

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Porter, Barry

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

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

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Knox, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Lamont, Norman

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Latham, Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lee, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Loveridge, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Luce, Richard

  Rost, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacGregor, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

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

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Major, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Silvester, Fred

  Marlow, Tony

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Speed, Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Mather, Carol

  Spence, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mawby, Ray

  Sproat, Iain

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Squire, Robin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stainton, Keith

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mellor, David

  Stanley, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Steen, Anthony

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stevens, Martin

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Moate, Roger

  Stokes, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Monro, Hector

  Tapsell, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Moore, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Tebbit, Norman

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Donald

  Mudd, David

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Myles, David

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Needham, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Neubert, Michael

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waddington, David

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wakeham, John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Page, Richard(SW Herts)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wall, Patrick

  Parris, Matthew

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Walters, Dennis

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Wells, Bowen

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Pollock, Alexander

  Whitney, Raymond

  879

  Wickenden, Keith

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Wolfson, Mark

  and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Question accordingly negatived
  Mr. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I understand that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) wishes to move new clause 7 and that it will be convenient for the House to take with it new clause 6—Provisions of section 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome —and the following amendments:
  No. 21, in clause 9, page 8, line 43, at end insert—
  `(c) or had the right of abode in a British Dependent Territory, to which the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, under Article 227(4), apply.'.
  No. 86, in clause 46, page 34, line 32, at end insert 'and Gibraltar'.
  No. 53, in page 35, line 24, after 'territory', insert
  `and including any British Dependent Territory to which Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome applies.'.
  No. 84, in Schedule 6, page 51, line 41, leave out 'Gibraltar'.
  I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has agreed to this procedure.

New Clause 7

  RIGHT TO REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF UNITED KINGDOM NATIONALITY FOR EUROPEAN COMMUNITY PURPOSES.
  8A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part II of this Act a person who has a right of abode in a British Dependent Territory to which the provisions of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome apply or who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome shall be entitled, on application, to be registered as a British Citizen.—[Mr. McQuarrie.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I have to declare a special interest in the new clauses, because I have a Gibraltarian daughter-in-law and two of my grandchildren were born in Gibraltar. I also spent six and a half years in Gibraltar in a business capacity, erecting hospitals, schools, public buildings and Ministry of Defence and local authority housing. In that time I developed a deep affection for the people of Gibraltar, who were living under such difficult circumstances.
  New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 21 and 53 are embodied in new clause 7, and I therefore propose to speak to that new clause and not to move new clause 6, a proposal which has met with the approval of Mr. Speaker.
  New clause 7 seeks to grant to the people of Gibraltar the right to registration by virtue of the status that they now enjoy as United Kingdom citizens for European purposes. The acceptance of the new clause is essential if the House is to be seen to be safeguarding the interests of the Gibraltarians. It is accepted that they have the right of abode as Community nationals by virtue of the operation of article 227 (4) of the Treaty of Rome.
  No other dependent territory is ever likely to achieve that status. That fully justifies the claim that Gibraltar
  880
  should be classed with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, the people of which will enjoy full British citizenship under the Bill. None of the other dependent territories will be affected if the new clause is accepted, as the present status of the Gibraltarians was granted when we entered the EEC because, even then, they were considered to be a much closer tie to Britain than were those in the Far East.
  It is also accepted that successive British Governments have permitted Gibraltarians to enter and live in Britain and to be considered as equals when applying for employment in Britain. But that is only at the discretion of the Government of the day and can be removed at any time if circumstance in the United Kingdom are such that the continuation of the discretion is difficult or impossible to maintain.
  The people of Gibraltar live in constant fear that existing rights will be removed. That fear is genuine when one considers that there is always the possibility of a future British Government withdrawing from the EEC, which would at once remove from the Gibraltarians the right to be United Kingdom citizens for Community purposes under article 227.
  That fear has been expressed in Gibraltar by the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the leader of the official Opposition, Mr. Joe Bossano, an independent Member of the House of Assembly, and all the other Members of the House of Assembly. It has also been expressed by trade unions, the chamber of commerce, the churches and the vast majority of the people of Gibraltar.
  It was summed up conclusively by Mr. Sam Benady QC, the leader of the Bar in Gibraltar, who said in his address at the opening of the legal year in Gibraltar last year:
  "We have had many verbal assurances that the Gibraltarians would be afforded special treatment if they wish to enter, or reside, in the United Kingdom. These are mere assurances, but in law they have no right. Great Britain has said time and time again that it will sustain and support us, but I as a loyal British subject say to Britain—from these ancient benches of our Supreme Court—it is no use sustaining the body if you do not sustain the spirit".
  Mr. Benady said that in 1970, repeated it in 1977 and said it again in 1980, but the cry has gone unheeded by successive Governments. It is for the Government to answer the call. To approve new clause 7 would cause no upset for any other dependent territory or to any independent State.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been made well aware of the deep feelings held by the vast majority of the people in Gibraltar that they should not be classified as citizens of the British dependent territories. Thousands of letters have been sent to my right hon. Friend from ordinary people in Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has been inundated with representations opposed to the Government's proposals. All have gone unheeded. The Government refuse to bend to meet the rightful request of these beleaguered people.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in a circular sent to those who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary protesting about the proposals, stated that the Government were aware of the strength of feeling in Gibraltar but felt bound to adhere to the view that
  "connections with Gibraltar should qualify people for citizenship of the British dependent territories and not for British citizenship."

  881
  Why should it be contrary to the purposes of the Bill to say that for historical or some other reasons people from one territory should be treated differently from the rest? It was a closing of the door completely when the Minister of State, in a letter of 19 February to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), stated that Gibraltar was not the only dependent territory for which people could make a claim for special treatment and that to make an exception would go a long way towards nullifying the whole idea of citizenship for dependent territories.
  Even in that letter, the element of fear for the future held by the Gibraltarians was shown up when the Minister of State wrote that the fact that the Gibraltarians would become citizens of the dependent territories would not "materially" affect their existing position in relation to the United Kingdom. Yet he has stated consistently that the Gibraltarians would not be affected by the Bill. How does he, therefore, justify his remark that they will not be "materially" affected?
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State concluded his letter by stating that he was convinced that the Government's proposals were on the right track. The proposals have been rejected totally by the people of Gibraltar as a sell-out and a reduction to second-class citizenship with no legal guarantees for the status that the Gibraltarians now enjoy.
  It is not my intention to go over all the reasons to explain the depth of feeling that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House that Gibraltar should be granted special consideration. These views were expressed on Second Reading and in Committee. I am anxious that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible should be able to speak.
  These new clauses, especially new clause 7, are not only supported by those whose names appear attached to mine. The clause was also supported when tabled on 20 May by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and also by the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
  New clause 7, if accepted by the House, will give the Gibraltarians a right on application to be registered as British citizens. These two words "on application" mean that any person from Gibraltar can opt for British citizenship or retain his Gibraltarian status with the option to apply for Spanish citizenship in due course if that option is offered by the Spanish authorities. It must not be forgotten that for more than 270 years the Gibraltarians have been under British rule. They can never become independent even if they so wish.
  There is no need to dwell on the hardships, abuses and difficulties inflicted on the people of Gibraltar since 1954. They are well known in the House and in the country. It is sufficient to say that the patriotism of the people of Gibraltar for their own city and for Britain was aroused to a degree never known before. In the 1967 referendum, 12,138 Gibraltarians voted in a poll of 95·8 per cent. for British sovereignty. Forty-four people voted to be linked with Spain. That position remains as strong today. While the majority of Gibraltarians work in harmony with Spanish people, they do not want Spanish citizenship.
  882
  The new clause will give them the right to choose. It will also remove from them the stigma which was placed on the people of Gibraltar when the Bill was published, when the Spanish newspapers reported that Gibraltar, on the passing of this legislation, would be nothing more than a colony of monkeys.
  Shall we allow the Bill to be the final chapter in the long history that has existed between the Gibraltarians and the British people? "Solid as the rock" means more than just a piece of hard stone to the Gibraltarians. It means a steadfast determination never to give in. To the British people it is a symbol that nothing can be broken or disintegrate in their relationship with the people of Gibraltar.
  If new clause 7 is not accepted, it will be to our undying shame that we have let down the people who are more British than the British, who served this country in its time of need through two world wars and who now look to this House to grant them the legal right to become British citizens if they so choose. That is what new clause 7 seeks to do.
  All in Gibraltar and many hundreds of thousands of supporters of Gibraltar in Britain and overseas look to the Minister to accept this new clause. If he fails to do so, we shall divide the House in an effort to secure success for the desire of the Gibraltarians to remain first-class British citizens with legal rights.
  Mr. Julian Amery: We are discussing a matter that touches a raw nerve, I think on both sides of the House. Gibraltar has been British longer than it was ever Spanish. It was Spanish during the time between the Moorish evacuation and the British conquest of the fortress, but it has been longer under our rule than it was under that of Spain. Historically, therefore, it is rather a special case.
  As my hon Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, it is a special case in another sense, namely, that under the Treaty of Utrecht it can never become independent. It is not like other colonies, which have been decolonised. It exists solely by virtue of its connection with Britain.
  In World War Two the great majority of the population was evacuated to Britain. We recognised then that kinship with us. I have had some connection with the Rock. As a serving officer in World War Two, I can say—I do not believe that any military historian will disagree—that we could not have won the war without Gibraltar. Without Gibraltar, we could never have had the landings in North Africa, and without those landings we could never have achieved the conquest of Italy and later the liberation of France. That is not unimportant, because the Franco regime, when in power, was benevolent in its so-called neutrality to our enemies.
  Today, Gibraltar is part of the European Community. I agree that it has certain privileges, but it is part of that Community, as we are. Spain aspires to become a member.
  My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written to me saying that they will respect the opportunities that the Gibraltarians enjoy today to become full British citizens if they so wish. I believe that at present there is no wish to change the relevant regulations. The Gibraltarians do not want that as a privilege. They want it as a right. They deserve it as a right. What is the argument against? The European

  883
  Community gave Gibraltarians the right of abode after the Second World War and they staunchly voted for the British connection.
  11 pm
  I know the arguments that my right hon. Friend will deploy. He will say that it might open the floodgates to countless others. The example of Hong Kong will be thrown in our faces. I have a great regard for Hong Kong and its people. However, Hong Kong is different from Gibraltar. Hong Kong is not a member of the European Community. It is not a fortress which can never become independent. Indeed, we have to talk with the People's Republic of China about the future of Hong Kong, and we do so. The case of Hong Kong is the alibi which my right hon. Friend will probably wave in front of the House.
  Anyone who has his ear to the ground in Whitehall knows that that is not the reality. The reality is the desire to appease the Spanish Government. I have always been a friend of Spain, under whatever regime. I love the Spanish people. Few of us would disagree that Spain is not a stable country. It had a dictatorship, which was stable but unfriendly. There is now a democratic experiment. We hope that it will succeed and survive. Things have happened in the Spanish Parliament which I pray to God will never happen in this Chamber. I talked to my friends in the police in the House on the night the Spanish Parliament was raided. They seemed a little amused at what was going on.
  The Spanish Government defaulted on the pledge given to the Foreign Secretary about lifting the blockade. The blockade was a remnant of Franco's policies against us. Spain is applying to join the European Community. Its governing party wishes to join NATO. I should welcome Spain to both organisations. However, let us face it—they need us more than we need them.
  Spain must accept the reality that in the foreseeable future the people of Gibraltar will want to remain British. It is idle to pretend otherwise. They deserve nationality and citizenship by right. I underline that. It is no use pussyfooting in the hope of achieving good will in Spain. On the contrary, if the House were to reject the new clause the impact on Gibraltar would be catastrophic. Perhaps it would not have mattered if the new clause had never been moved—but it has.
  Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues have bent over backwards to try to help the Foreign Secretary out of the ridiculous dilemma on the horns of which he and his colleagues have impaled themselves by making it obligatory on the Gibraltarians to register—to take an active step—rather than be given what should have been given by any generous-minded British Government.
  This is an occasion for us to recognise our debt to Gibraltar. We must recognise its special status as a European fortress and the right of its inhabitants, who are the basic garrison of the fortress, to be accepted as full British citizens. If they are given the option to register, which is proposed in the new clause, I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that few Gibraltarians will forgo the opportunity to proclaim their allegiance to Britain.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), who has been a
  884
  most steadfast friend to Gibraltar ever since he entered the House and for a long time before. We must pay tribute to his work for Gibraltar.
  It is a great pleasure for me to find myself following the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—as I have done many times before and disagreed with his remarks—and realise that I have no disagreement with anything that he said. As a minority party Member, I want to make one thing quite clear. Whichever party—even if it were my own—introduced this legislation, I should vote against it. As the hon. Gentleman so clearly expressed, it is quite wrong that we in the House, with our long debt to and relationship with Gibraltar, should even contemplate what we are now doing. That must be wrong.
  If a Labour Home Secretary had introduced this legislation, what would the Home Secretary be saying about it? I have no doubt that if a Labour Home Secretary introduced the same propositions, the right hon. Gentleman would oppose them passionately, strongly and fervently. I appeal to the sense of justice that I know he has deeply held and ask him to reconsider his position.
  I know that the basic argument is that if we make an exception for Gibraltar, an exception will have to be made in another case. I do not accept that it is not possible for the House to make a reasonable accommodation for 30,000 people who have shown consistent loyalty to Britain throughout their history. I do not accept that that is not possible.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that Gibraltar was a member of the European Community. Perhaps that is not directly relevant, but it is worth recording that Gibraltar does not benefit greatly from that. An article in The Guardian on 14 May by Mark Arnold Forster clearly showed that British citizenship within the European Community did not benefit Gibraltarians. They had no opportunity to vote for anyone in the European Parliament—something that the French did not deny their colonies, nor did the Danes deny it to those who live in Greenland. We have already treated Gibraltar badly, and now we are treating it even worse.
  Most hon. Members will have received a letter from the House of Assembly in Gibraltar. I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East for being slightly late for the beginning of his speech. He probably referred to that letter. He is shaking his head. I expect that a number of hon. Members received that letter, dated 28 May, jointly signed by Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the minority party, more or less saying "Please do not do this to us." In other words, the population of Gibraltar, whatever its political attitudes, is united in rejecting what is proposed to be done.
  I think that everyone on both sides of the House regards the Home Secretary as a fair-minded and decent person. I say to him that it is clear beyond peradventure that unanimously the people of Gibraltar do not want us to do this to them. I therefore think that the House must not do it. It must accept the clause tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East.
  Mr. Sir Bernard Braine: I join with the plea made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is indeed a fair-minded man. I hope that the debate will cause him to have second thoughts.

  885
  If there is one thing that I abhor it is injustice. If there is one thing for which the House stands, apart from exercising vigilance where the actions of Her Majesty's Ministers are concerned, it is redress of grievance. We are concerned here with an injustice.
  That is a serious assertion; it deserves to be taken seriously. The position of the Gibraltarians is unique. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) reminded us, the Rock has been British for longer than it was ever under the crown of Spain. Gibraltarians are not Spaniards, although there has been some intermarriage over the centuries. They and their forebears have long been associated with the maritime defence and strategy of the United Kingdom. Many Gibraltarians have fought and some have died for this country in times of difficulty for us and for them. I think of events in the eighteenth century. I think of the senseless blockade by a Fascist dictator. Over the years Gibraltarians have looked to Britain for protection and have received it. They have made their own contribution to our common cause.
  The Gibraltrians have not sought independence. They do not aspire to be members of the United Nations. The terms of the Treaty of Utrecht expressly debar them from seeking the goal of political independence. If there is to be any change of sovereignty in Gibraltar, Gibraltar must revert to the crown of Spain. For that reason alone its people are unique among the peoples of the remaining British dependent territories.
  When the Gibraltarians have been given the opportunity to express their views about their future, they have done so emphatically and clearly. In 1967 there was the declaration by 12,138 votes to 44 in favour of being British rather than Spanish. Has there ever been such a clear-cut decision in any referendum that any hon. Member can recall?
  The Gibraltarians are unique in another sense. It is precisely because of their link with the United Kingdom that they are regarded as an integral element in the European Community. They have a relationship with us which is similar to that of the Channel Islands and rather closer than that of the Isle of Man. One would have expected, therefore, some recognition of this uniqueness by the Government.
  11.15 pm
  I should like to have been a member of the Standing Committee, but I was not. I read what was said by hon. Members on both sides. The Government spokesman's argument for brushing aside the claims of Gibraltar and refusing any special concession was, I regret to say, about as unconvincing an argument as I have ever read. The argument seemed to be twofold. First, if such a concession were made to the 30,000 Gibraltarians it would cause resentment in the remaining dependent territories. Over 90 per cent. of the population in the remaining territories live in one territory—Hong Kong. That argument was dealt with effectively by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: It was not.
  Mr. Sir Bernard Braine: No doubt my hon. Friend, who has interrupted from a seated position, will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
  886
  and of convincing us of the counter-argument, which certainly did not convince anyone else in Standing Committee.
  Where is the evidence for that counter-argument? Gibraltar already possesses a special status that no other dependent territory enjoys. Its citizens have an unrestricted right of entry to the United Kingdom now. What has happened to the argument that made that concession possible at a time when there were many more dependent territories than today?
  The second argument of the Government spokesman was that it would be wrong not to include Gibraltar with other dependencies, and that they must all be treated alike. To do otherwise would be a break with the a major principle. It might be a break with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's love of tidiness and fear of creating a precedent, but it has nothing to do with principle.
  Let us consider the extraordinary situation that we have allowed to develop, I prefer to think through a fit of absense of mind, rather than by deliberate intent. Gibraltarians already enjoy all the rights of other EEC citizens, save one. They have no representation in the European Parliament. They are the only EEC citizens without a vote in the elections for the European Parliament. The citizens of French Guiana, of Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Pierre and Miquelon, and Reunion all have the right to exercise a vote for elections in the European Parliament. The citizens of Greenland form a constituency and have a right to elect a member to the European Parliament. Not Gibraltarians—they are in Europe, while French citizens in the Caribbean, in the Indian Ocean and off the St. Lawrence estuary and Greenlanders are not.
  Mr. Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not the situation made more absurd in that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not members of the European Community, whereas the people of Gibraltar are.
  Mr. Sir Bernard Braine: Yes. As we consider the situation, it becomes stranger as we go along. My hon. Friend is right.
  Where is the consistency, logic and morality of the position that we have allowed to develop with regard to the Gibraltarians, who are recognised by our EEC partners as citizens of the Community? We could choose to put the matter right by agreeing tonight to the new clause, advanced so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). But until we do we in the House have no right to talk of principle and to condemn Gibraltarians to remain second-class citizens. We have no right to talk of principle and to reject their natural claim to be United Kingdom citizens. We have no right to ignore their special claims.
  I believe that it was Renan who said that a people are what they believe themselves to be. The Gibraltarians chose long ago to be British. They practise a British style of democracy, in quiet contrast to the great country to the north of them. Their education system is linked with our own. Those of us who know the people of the Rock know that their loyalty is to Britain, and that they feel British. Who among us could receive the letter of 28 May from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Bossano the

  887
  leader of the third party in the Gibraltar Assembly and not fail to be moved by the sheer logic of its argument, and the strength of feeling and love for Britain that it revealed?
  I submit that the House should reject the mean and dispiriting language of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in dealing with the just claims of the people of Gibraltar.
  Mr. Tilley: As hon. Members said, in Committee the discussion on Gibraltar was part of the wider debate on the whole concept of citizenship of the British dependent territories, which we have not yet discussed on Report. I briefly remind the House that that is a new citizenship being created by the Bill, where the 17 remaining British colonies will share one citizenship. People in Hong Kong, the Pitcairn Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which could hardly be more different geographically, historically, economically, and in their social and cultural patterns, will have a single citizenship.
  It is worth repeating the point made in Committee. Both sides agree with the aim of the legislation to get rid of the ridiculous rag-bag citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies created in 1948, which is totally inappropriate these days. However, there is a serious danger of creating new anomalies and problems with the new rag-bag collective umbrella citizenship of the British dependent territories. We suggested in Committee that because of their different natures now and the likely pattern of different development over the next few years—indeed, over the next generation—there should be a separate citizenship for each colony for whom the Bill is supposed to be providing nationality guidelines.
  First, I emphasise that we are not now discussing the question of splitting the citizenships of the dependent territories into individual citizenships. We are discussing the specific situation of Gibraltarians. We are not even discussing Gibraltar as a constitutional entity. New clause 7 does not change that at all. The relationship with Spain—the geo-political realities, to use the old Foreign and Commonwealth phrase—will not be changed by the clause. For that reason, I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
  However, we cannot support new clause 6 and the amendment that takes Gibraltar out of the citizenship of the dependent territories altogether and puts it into the British citizenship category, so that all Gibraltarians would be British citizens on day one. The amendment has implications not only for the all-important relationships with Spain, which we do not wish to disrupt, but for the 16 remaining colonies and, most of all and particularly, Hong Kong. We fully recognise the delicate position of Hong Kong. We do not want to make things worse for the people of Hong Kong, but, having considered the matter at length—I am sure the Government would say exhaustively—in Committee, we are convinced that new clause 7 would not affect the position of any other colony.
  I repeat briefly the reasons why we believe that there is a case for special consideration for the Gibraltarians as individual people. First, it is geographically by far the nearest of the dependencies to the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is the only dependency for which independence is legally impossible because, under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, if Britain gives up control of Gibraltar it returns automatically to Spain. Thirdly, it is the only dependency that is part of the EEC. The fact
  888
  that under the Treaty of Accession Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes has already been mentioned. That, too, applies only to Gibraltar. Fourthly, Gibraltarians already have rights of entry into this country. We know from the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and earlier today that the Bill is largely about who shall have the right of entry and the right of abode and who shall not. Gibraltarians have those rights not only as EEC nationals but—and this has perhaps not been emphasised enough—by the assurances given by the Labour Government in 1968 by the then Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Those four aspects are unique to Gibraltar.
  I repeat that we do not propose to change the constitutional position of Gibraltar. A concession on citizenship is not the thin end of any wedge for full integration with Britain or any other change in the position of Gibraltar. For that reason, it should not upset people in Madrid or people in Hong Kong or any other dependent territory.
  Perhaps I may pick up some of the points made by Conservative Members. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) mentioned that this was originally an all-party amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) had put their names to the original amendment. Indeed, although the impetus for this has come from all parts of the House, it seems to have come entirely from various parts of Scotland. The hon. Member referred to Joe Bossano as an independent member of the House of Assembly. He is in fact the leader of the Socialist Labour Party and a full-time officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. I should not wish the record to be wrong on that.
  I turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I, too, read the article in The Guardian, although I was not sure that not having an MEP might not in some ways be a blessing in disguise, but I should hate to suggest that that was in any way personal to him or, indeed, to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who also intervened in the debate. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the greatest pressure and expression of opinion was from Gibraltar. As a member of the Standing Committee I can certainly confirm that there were more letters, more concern and more delegations from Gibraltar than from all the other colonies put together and, indeed, in many ways from any other group even in this country.
  I conclude by commenting on the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who stressed the importance of Gibraltar in terms of our imperial history. I may not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on all analyses of the role and significance of the British Empire, but I remind Conservative Members that it seems that the old imperial maxim of "divide and rule" is being used today by the Government within this Chamber to set one group of Conservative Members against another. I suspect that the Hong Kong group has been stirred up to protect, as they are told, their interests against the Gibraltar group. I would simply advise all Conservative Members not to let themselves be used in that way. It did not work for long as a technique of imperial rule.
  I suggest that hon. Members consider the merits of the issue and I hope that not only my right hon. and hon.

  889
  Friends but a majority of the House will support new clause 7, so that Gibraltarians as individuals are given the right, which we believe they have earned because of their unique position, to become British citizens if they so wish, as individuals.
  11.30 pm
  Sir Paul Bryan: An impressive group of right hon. and hon. Members have put their names to the new clause. The group includes two former Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, one of them is now the distinguished chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am, therefore, not surprised at their enthusiasm for Gibraltar or their wish to promote its interests.
  However, I am surprised that with their Commonwealth background they do not realise the effect that the new clause may have on Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) gave a moving account of the Rock of Gibraltar's role in our history. Like him, I served in the Mediterranean during the war, and I agree that we should not have been there had it not been for Gibraltar.
  But let us also look at the slightly less glamorous future and at what Hong Kong provides us with now. A couple of months ago we got the biggest order in the history of British industry from Hong Kong. It will give work to thousands of people in this country for many years to come.
  Let me explain the effect of the new clause on relations with Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong did not want the Bill. They did not want any change in their status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, despite its lack of any right of abode. They feared that any change would be for the worse. Indeed, it would have been for the worse had it not been for the important amendments moved in Committee by my right hon. Friend.
  The fear experienced by the people of Hong Kong stems from a widely and genuinely held feeling—particularly among the young—that Great Britain is gradually distancing itself from Hong Kong. I explained the reasons for that on Second Reading. However, they have eventually been convinced by the Governor and by the Government that in placing Hong Kong in the new category of citizens of British dependent territories they are being treated exactly on a par with all the other dependent territories. They have received that promise and assurance from the Government. It is not only a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said. A promise has been given, which will be broken if the new clause is passed.
  If, at the eleventh hour, the clause is carried, what are we to say to the people of Hong Kong? If such a proposition had been put in the Bill's early stages, the people of Hong Kong would have claimed British citizenship just as the Gibraltarians are doing. If the new clause is accepted, there will be great pressure from the people of Hong Kong for them to be British citizens as well. What are we to say to the people of Hong Kong if the new clause is passed? Are we to say that Gibraltar is a special case? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In the eyes of the people of Hong Kong the opposite is true.
  890
  Gibraltar already has many enviable advantages. EEC status gives Gibraltarians easy entry into the United Kingdom, and work permits are available at will. That is denied to the people of Hong Kong. Gibraltarian students are classed as British, while Hong Kong students are treated as foreigners and have to pay much higher fees. I cannot overstress the sour impression that this has caused in Hong Kong, with its long tradition of British education.
  If, in addition to those obvious advantages, Gibraltar is singled out from the dependent territories for British citizenship, a promise will have been not only broken but broken without a single mitigating circumstance.
  Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. Everything has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and by other hon. Members. I have been persuaded partly because representations have been made to me by Sir Joshua Hassan, by Peter Isota and by Joe Bossano, of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Indeed, Mr. Bossano is also leader of the Labour Party in Gibraltar. I have had representations from many people, and I understand their thoughts and views very well.
  I make this appeal to the Home Secretary. He must not only consider the attitude of mind and the views of those important people in Gibraltar and of all Gibraltarians. He is also under a serious obligation to consider the views of the people who live in this country. I am not in favour of referendums in general terms and would not seek to persuade him to have a referendum on this issue, but if we were to ask the people of this country what they would like to do, I believe that they would want to give the Gibraltarians the rights that we would propose to give them in new clause 7.
  It is not too late for the Home Secretary to listen to the views of Opposition Members and of his hon. Friends. We know that the Home Secretary is a very important member of the Government. He can change the brief. That is something that Under-Secretaries of State cannot do. He has heard the views expressed from both sides of the House appealing to him to change his mind. He is a big enough man, having heard these views, to change his mind and to do so quickly.
  Sir Nigel Fisher: I have just returned from a week in Gibraltar, where deep and genuine anxiety about the Bill is not just widespread but universal. Business men, politicians of every party and the proverbial man in the street are all united in their fears and apprehensions.
  I do not believe that Gibraltar's interests are in practice prejudiced by the Bill. I tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade all the people that I talked to that their fears are groundless. It is not that they question the good faith of the British Government today. They do not. Their fears are for the future. They know that the Foreign Office, under any Government, would like to establish better relations with Spain. They know that Gibraltar is an obstacle to better relations with Spain, and that at some future date this might become a problem for Britain, with the danger that, to placate Spain, Gibraltar might be sacrificed.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who is not in his place tonight, will not think me uncharitable if I say that his recent comments, made publicly in Gibraltar and in Spain, added fuel to the fears of the Gibraltarians. He said:
  "Why should 20,000 Gibraltarians stand in the way of the interests of 36 million Spaniards and 50 million Britons?"

  891
  That remark sent a shiver down every Gibraltarian back, and it was quoted to me in Gibraltar last week again and again.
  The Gibraltarians know that our resolve to support and sustain Gibraltar is implemented by Ministers on an administrative basis, and they are genuinely afraid that a future British Government might be tempted to improve its relations with Spain—perphaps through the Lisbon agreement—by abandoning Gibraltar. I tried to allay these fears because I do not believe that any British Government would let Gibraltar down. But the people there would feel much safer and much more secure if there were a statutory guarantee such as is suggested in new clause 7. That could not be interpreted in any other colony as discrimination in favour of Gibraltar, because no other colony has Gibraltar's special—indeed, unique—status under article 227 of the Treaty of Rome, through which Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes.
  That is the basis of their entitlement to special treatment, and it is unlike the position of any other colony. But apart from the European status, no other dependent territory has ever challenged the favourable treatment that Gibraltar has always enjoyed. It has never been invoked as a precedent by anybody else, so I do not think it could or would be used, for instance, in Hong Kong or even in the Falkland Islands, which I also support.
  Nor are British interests affected in any way because there has been no immigration of numerical significance from Gibraltar to Britain at any time nor will there be in the future. In practice, therefore, no problem arises either for Britain or for Gibraltar. The problem in Gibraltar is, quite simply, psychological. All her institutions are British; her system of government, her judicial system, her public services, her educational system, her police force and even her radio and television services are all modelled on ours. Many of her trade unions are branches of trade unions in Britain, and, of course, her imports and tourists are almost entirely from this country.
  There is one other point that I should like hon. Members to bear in mind. The people of Gibraltar have been under British rule and British protection for 270 years during which we have built up and used Gibraltar for our defence purposes, despite which the people still like us very much, which is rather warming and unusual in the modern world. It is no longer fashionable to talk of patriotism but people of my generation remember the days when the red on every school atlas and the power of the British Navy made us proud to be British.
  Gibraltar remains as a reminder of those days. It has a special place in the hearts of English people, just as Britain has a special place in the hearts of every Gibraltarian, so this debate is really about people and how they feel. I understand very well how the Gibraltarians feel. I know how let down they would feel if their friends in this House did not support them. It is for that reason that I must, for the first time since about 1965, vote against my party in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure every hon. Member will appreciate that the motives behind those who have supported the new clause are none other than the deep affection and loyalty felt by everyone in the House and in the country towards the people of Gibraltar. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) quoting remarks made by the hon. Member for
  892
  Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I am sure that those remarks will be repudiated by every hon. Member, from whichever side of the House he may come.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of the relationship with Spain. The right hon. Meraber for Down, South (Mr. Powell), speaking in Committee, said that if the purpose of the new clause was carried through it would not make a significant difference to any future decision that the people of Gibraltar might take about their status or whether that might even mean a move towards Spain. He was probably right in saying that.
  The only small contribution that I can make to this debate is to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that he frequently protests to us late at night when orders are laid separately for Irish business instead of being included in general legislation.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Northern Irish.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry; I should have said for Northern Irish business. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) immediately corrected me when I said "Irish" rather than "Northern Irish" business. The reason why the right hon. Member for Down, South is so assiduous in doing that, and the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington rightly picks me up on the point, is that that is perceived in Northern Ireland as affecting its position in the United Kingdom. Many of us may think that they are making niggling points. We know that the House is at one in wishing to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is part of it. They know that a slight slip-up of the kind I have just committed can be perceived in Northern Ireland as undermining the closeness and unity of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.
  I am utterly convinced that the commitments that the Gibraltarians have had from this House as outlined particularly in the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969 are copper-bottomed, and any acceptance of the clause would be perceived by the Spanish people as a move to thwart the warm and cordial relations now being built up between our two countries. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the clause.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have sought to take as little time as I can to give as many of my hon. Friends as possible a chance to speak. I hope, therefore, that I may be given the chance to make what is not a very easy speech, and that my hon. Friends will do me the courtesy of listening carefully to what I have to say, even where they may not wholly accept the position.
  The clause was moved with great passion and feeling, which I fully appreciate, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). As he said, it would not remove Gibraltar from the ambit of British overseas citizenship. Rather, it would entitle a citizen of the British dependent territories from Gibraltar to have British citizenship if he asked for it. The clause does this by enabling those who have the right of abode in a dependent territory to which article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome applies, and those who are United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes through their links with such a territory, to be entitled to acquire British citizenship on application. Those who would benefit from the amendment would not have to meet any residence

  893
  requirements and would be free to acquire British citizenship and the right of abode, without ever setting foot here and without, indeed, having any personal ties with this country.
  In seeking to make a more coherent and logical system of citizenship, as we explained in the White Paper that we published last year, we were influenced by the argument that the status of the remaining dependencies should be positively recognised in citizenship terms. That is why we have created a separate citizenship of the British dependent territories, which is to be held by those who have ties with the dependencies and will be an accurate reflection of their status. It is not a second-class citizenship. We regard it as a parallel status to British citizenship, held on like terms.
  Having created this citizenship, I believe that it would be wholly unacceptable to exempt one dependency from it. That is precisely the sort of anomaly that we sought to erase in the Bill in the first instance. The clause would make an exception for one dependency, which would lead to demands for others, which could scarcely be resisted.
  Some of my hon. Friends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), say that anyone who has his ear to the ground in Whitehall knows that this is all to do with Spain and nothing to do with Hong Kong. I find it surprising, though I suppose I must accept it if my right hon. Friend says so, that I do not have my ear to the ground in Whitehall. At least I have a voice that is heard in Whitehall. I make it heard, and I also hear what is said, because I listen sometimes. I tell my right hon. Friend quite categorically that the attitude that I am taking tonight has nothing whatsoever to do with Spain or with the Spanish position on Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend smiles, but he should recognise that, as Home Secretary, I am interested in the Bill. Of course, I have a collective responsibility with the Foreign Secretary, but this is my Bill and I have taken responsibility for it.
  Let me explain why I think that exempting one dependency would be difficult and would raise questions from others. It would be impossible to explain to the Falkland islanders why they were not being made British citizens when the Gibraltarians were acquiring that status. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that he had great affection for the Falkland islanders and I have no doubt that it would be difficult to explain the difference in status to them.
  It is no good anyone telling me that the people of Hong Kong would not demand similar treatment if we accepted the new clause and would not be deeply resentful if they did not get it. I know that they would, because they have told me so. In that case, I had my ear to the ground and I heard them say it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion will accept that I heard them correctly. It is important to accept that some other dependencies would also be resentful.
  If we gave way to other dependencies, we would be back to where we are now, with an unsatisfactory position. Alternatively, we would have a new British citizenship with immigration commitments for the future which, I am sure, nearly every hon. Member would regard as unacceptable. It is important that I say that to the House. That is why I do not believe that we should give way on the amendments.
  I accept that my hon. Friends have made an excellent case and I accept their emotional arguments. The hon.
  894
  Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that if I were in Opposition listening to a Labour Minister arguing against the new clause I would oppose him passionately. That must be a hypothetical argument, but I doubt whether it is true, because, surprising though it may seem—some people may think that I get very excited from time to time—I am not swayed by emotion on these issues to the extent that some might expect. The argument that if we gave way to one dependency we would be forced to give way to the others—with unacceptable immigration problems—is correct.
  I find it hard to accept the argument of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) that new clause 7 would be easier for Hong Kong to accept than would new clause 6. The same problem would arise with either clause.
  I have explained the simple and straightforward reasons why I cannot advise the House to accept any of the amendments to give Gibraltar a special position, but I fully understand the views put on behalf of the people of Gibraltar and I find it difficult to take the view that I have expressed. However, I am convinced that I should be wrong and irresponsible in the long run to take any other position.
  I should make it clear that the creation of a citizenship of the British dependent territories does not alter our relationship with those territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton was fair enough to point out that he does not believe that the fears understandably felt in Gibraltar are full of sound sense. My hon. Friend believes that they are prejudiced in some way and that they are not genuine.
  Mr. Russell Johnston rose——
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry; I shall not give way. I am trying to finish my speech before 12 o'clock. I do not see why I should show any preference to the hon. Gentleman in giving way.
  The Government have given specific assurances to Gibraltar. There is no question of the administrative concession that enables Gibraltarians to enter the United Kingdom freely being withdrawn as a result of the Bill. That concession is not affected by the Bill. Gibraltar has been give that assurance. We have made it clear that we intend to ensure that rights now enjoyed by the people of Gibraltar as part of the European Community should continue. Even if the circumstances that led to the administrative concession for Gibraltarians to enter the United Kingdom were to alter, we have made it clear that we do not foresee that Gibraltarians would normally face any difficulty in entering the United Kingdom as they wish.
  I believe that these are important assurances. It is right that I should give them. Having made those points, I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness.
  Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he founds the whole of his case on the problem of the large population of Hong Kong. That is an inadequate response to the argument made on behalf of smaller dependencies.
  Mr. Whitelaw: In my time in public life I have heard a great many arguments that a special case can be made which is not really a special case and that it will have no effect on the principle or associated problems. I do not

  895
  accept that a special case can be made for Gibraltar without the consequences in relation to Hong Kong that I have outlined. That is why I oppose making a special case.
  Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend take the debate seriously? Two points that have been raised are that Gibraltar is part of the European Community and that as a fortress it can never become independent. Will my right hon. Friend address himself to those matters?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that I do not take the debate seriously. I do, most certainly. I have made it clear why I do not believe that I could conceivably allow the House to accept the new clause, with the consequences that I believe would ensue.
  I understand the arguments put by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members for making Gibraltar a special case. I do not believe, however, in the context of the Bill, that a special case can be conceded without consequences for Hong Kong that I cannot recommend the House to accept. That is the burden of my case. On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 273.

  Division No. 197]

  [11.57 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  Deakins, Eric

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dixon, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Dormand, Jack

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Dick

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Beith, A. J.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Dunlop, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunn, James A.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunnett, Jack

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eadie, Alex

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Eastham, Ken

  Brotherton, Michael

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

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  English, Michael

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

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Farr, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Cant, R. B.

  Flannery, Martin

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ford, Ben

  Churchill, W. S.

  Forrester, John

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

  Foster, Derek

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foulkes, George

  Cook, Robin F.

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

  Cowans, Harry

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Freud, Clement

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fry, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Garrett, John(Norwich S)

  Crowther, J. S.

  George, Bruce

  Cryer, Bob

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ginsburg, David

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Graham, Ted

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  896

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

  Parker, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry, Robert

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Penhaligon, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Prescott, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Race, Reg

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

  Radice, Giles

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

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Hooley, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Howells, Geraint

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ryman, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Sever, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kinnock, Neil

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdaln)

  Lambie, David

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Latham, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leighton, Ronald

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Litherland, Robert

  Stoddart, David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Straw, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  McKelvey, William

  Tilley, John

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tinn, James

  McNally, Thomas

  Torney, Tom

  McNamara, Kevin

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Magee, Bryan

  Wainwright, H. (Colne V)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Marlow, Tony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Wall, Patrick

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Watkins, David

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Weetch, Ken

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Welsh, Michael

  Maxton, John

  White, Frank R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Meacher, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

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

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Morton, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Young, David(Bolton E)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Albeit McQuarrie

  Palmer, Arthur

  and Mr. Neville Sandelson

  897

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Alexander, Richard

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Ancram, Michael

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Arnold, Tom

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Baker, Kenneth (St M'bone)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Banks, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gorst, John

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gow, Ian

  Best, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gray, Hamish

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Blackburn, John

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Blaker, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Hannam, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Buck, Antony

  Heddle, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Henderson, Barry

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hicks, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hill, James

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

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

  Hooson, Tom

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hordern, Peter

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

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

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

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Corrie, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Knox, David

  Dover, Denshore

  Lamont, Norman

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lang, Ian

  Durant, Tony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Eggar, Tim

  Lee, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Emery, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, lan (Havant & W'loo)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Loveridge, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

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

  MacGregor, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Forman, Nigel

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  898

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

  Rost, Peter

  Madel, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Major, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Marland, Paul

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mates, Michael

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Mather, Carol

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mawby, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Shersby, Michael

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Silvester, Fred

  Mellor, David

  Sims, Roger

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Speed, Keith

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Speller, Tony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spence, John

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Hector

  Sproat, Iain

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Squire, Robin

  Moore, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Stanley, John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stevens, Martin

  Mudd, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Myles, David

  Stokes, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Needham, Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Neubert, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Newton, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thompson, Donald

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Parris, Matthew

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Trippier, David

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Waddington, David

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Wakeham, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Pollock, Alexander

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Porter, Barry

  Waller, Gary

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Walters, Dennis

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, John

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wells, Bowen

  Raison, Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Renton, Tim

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Roper, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Rossi, Hugh

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Twelve o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned pursuant to Order 129 April].
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  Animal Health Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.12 am
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is a strict consolidation measure which brings together the legislation primarily concerned with the entry and movement of animals in circumstances that might result in the introduction or spread of animal diseases. As one look at schedule 6 to the Bill—a schedule of repeals—will show, it is perhaps surprising how many different enactments relate to the subject. It is useful for practitioners to have all the statutes drawn together by this consolidation measure.
  A point arose in Committee about the substitution of metric measurements for imperial measurements. I have given the details to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who took an interest in the matter. I shall be happy to give the same details to any other hon. Member. I shall content myself with that brief explanation and commend the Bill to the House.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I rise briefly to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory position which arose in Committee. To my knowledge, the House has never taken a vote in support of metrication. It has taken votes in support of decimalisation but has never dabated fully and considered as a question of principle whether it is advisable or desirable for us to substitute metrication measures for imperial measures, which the House has hitherto advocated and supported in legislation.
  An exception is that provision has been made in a number of statutes for orders to be laid if necessary, in certain circumstances, for the substitution of metrication in certain parts of Bills. It is under that heading that two parts of this consolidation measure have been added to by metrication in parts of clauses. That arises in respect of references to a pony's height in hands, the offence of throwing a diseased carcase in the sea within three miles of the shore, the increase of a fine related to every additional half a ton and the definition of a pony by reference to height in hands.
  These are all insignificant matters and no doubt it is eminent common sense to make the changes that are in the Bill. However, by a process of introducing regulations and statutory instruments we have incorporated what to my mind are substantial changes in principle into the law of the land. We have metricated through the back door, as it were.
  The fault lies with the House in the sense that it has made provision for metrication by regulation. It is the fault of the House also for allowing this to happen because regulations are laid at late hours and nobody pays very much attention to them. One regulation was laid in September 1980 and was not prayed against because nobody noticed it. When the second of the regulations was laid in January or February, I noticed it and I went to the Public Bill Office. I gave notice that I sought, with certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to pray against it. By an error that sometimes arises in the best ordered of families, the prayer was never tabled. That was not my fault. I think that it has been accepted to have been an error
  900
  of the administration. Therefore, the second regulation was not prayed against and an opportunity for the House to take a view on whether we should metricate by regulation or by statutory instrument was missed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not go into the question whether we should metricate. This is a consolidation measure.
  Mr. Lawrence: I shall try, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stick as closely as I can to the rules.
  Before a consolidation measure passes through the House, we should consider whether it is right not only to consolidate legislation that has already been established on the statute book but to add to that legislation regulations and statutory instruments and to consolidate those. As a question of law, I am convinced—I have been in correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—that it is proper to consolidate a statutory instrument. However, I am not convinced that it is desirable to metricate when nobody knows that we are doing so and before the House has taken a vote on the principle.
  If the House were to wake up tomorrow morning to find that we had metricated, by however small a measure, that would be the thin end of the wedge. I think that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be annoyed, irritated and perhaps even angry. It seems that the procedures of the House have allowed this to happen, and I cannot do more than speak against it. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I hope that it will never happen again. I hope that we shall be vigilant with the orders that are laid before the House to ensure that statutory instruments are not used to add to existing legislation, and as a fait accompli to come before the House late at night to say that we are consolidating a measure within the law perfectly properly as the rules allow, only to find that we have done something to which a large proportion of the House would take great exception.
  12.20 am
  Mr. Peter Archer: If I were going to be jumped by anyone, I could not wish it to be anyone other than the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I am not sure that I follow everything that he put before the House tonight. It would please me if I thought that in future we would not go metric, as I am sure that I will not go to my grave translating kilometres into miles and kilograms into pounds.
  We should pay attention to the Committee's report to this extent. This matter was referred to by the Solicitor-General. The effect of the legislation when we go metric is that a round figure must be translated. At present, it is translated literally. Therefore, in the clauses referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Burton there are references to casting a corpse into the sea within 4.8 km of the shore. Clause 41 speaks of ponies 122 cm and 107 cm in height. Clause 75 speaks of calculating a fine in multiples of 50 lb for every 508 kg.
  I understand that at present there is nothing that the Committee can do except approve translations that are literal in that way. Clearly, if we are going to go metric it is better that round figures should be translated into round figures. Otherwise, our statutes will be even more difficult and complicated than they are already.

  901
  As usual, the Opposition welcome any measure of consolidation and law reform. Therefore, I am content to leave the matter there tonight. I hope that the Solicitor-General can give us an assurance, if not on the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton and in general about the future of metrication when we consolidate statutes, that when we incorporate metrication into statutes, at least, we do it in sensible and understandable figures.
  12.23 am
  The Solicitor-GeneralI am happy to add a word on the points that have been raised. There has been some misunderstanding about what happened. The Committee erred for once in thinking that the conversions were made in the Bill. They were not. The conversions were made by statutory instrument under section 7 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Those statutory instruments brought about the conversion.
  I have been here long enough to know the difficulties to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred. So many things are going through the House that we cannot spot them all. The fact is that there they are. Everything is done openly and there is an opportunity to pray against such measures. They cannot be done by primary legislation, which would ensure that they were brought before the House. There are not enough hours in the day to do that. I am aware of the difficulty here. It may be that that matter will have alerted those who are interested in the subject to look out for further statutory instruments which make conversions into metric quantities. I drew attention to that.
  It is important to realise that the conversion is not done under this consolidation measure, nor is it done under the measures that are consolidated in the Bill. The conversions were made by statutory instrument under section 7 of the 1976 Act. Once the conversions have been made by statutory instruments the statutes that are being consolidated are amended and the consolidation can include only the new quantities.
  On the rounding up, there is one figure here which, if it had been taken literally, would have extended to six figures on the right hand side of the decimal point. I am not too good at metrication, and I do not mind admitting it. There has been an element of rounding up. In each case there would be at least two figures after the decimal point if it were done strictly, but section 7(3) of the 1976 Act permits rounding up, but only within narrow limits.
  My hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will be glad of this assurance. In every case, the rounding up has been done in such a way as never to extend the scope of a criminal offence—because these figures all relate to criminal offences. Where the choice has been between rounding up in a way that would extend the scope of criminal offences and rounding up in a way that would not, the draftsman has always taken the second course. None of the rounding up has extended the scope of any criminal offence. That is the best that the draftsman and all concerned in the consolidation can do in the circumstances. I hope that that will help to reassure my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the assurances that he has given, but the assurance that I really want is that before the Government introduce legislation—which is what they are doing in this consolidation Bill—where they must know that the House is fundamentally concerned with an issue, they will alert the House. It would have been better had they said here that the Bill was a matter of metricating, on which feelings run deep, and perhaps we might have had an opportunity to debate metrication rather more fully. As far as I know, nothing was said in relation to the regulations.
  Although I accept completely and utterly the Government's bona fides in this matter, the complete propriety of everything that is done and the complete consistency of the regulations, I merely ask my hon. and learned Friend to give an assurance that, if the situation arises again, the Government will alert the House to the dangers of what is happening, knowing that the House might feel strongly about the issue.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend must realise that although some people feel strongly about metrication, others do not give a hoot about it and yet others believe that it is a very good thing. Almost everything that the Government do is of great concern to some people and to others of no concern at all. I cannot give an assurance that the Government will say that a matter is of particular concern so that they will alert those interested. Our system—I have acknowledged its deficiencies—is that certain things must be done by statutory instrument, and statutory instruments are available for all to see. I do not underestimate the difficulty of following them all, but that is what we have to do to the best of our ability. I cannot give an assurance of the kind for which my hon. and learned Friend asks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3)(i) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c), the Customs Duties (Quota Relief) (Paper, Paperboard and Printed Products Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1884) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  LIAISON COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the Order of 31 January 1980 relating to the nomination of the Liaison Committee be amended by leaving out Sir John Langford-Holt and inserting Mr. Cranley Onslow.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  Warrant Sales
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  12.31 am
  Mr. James Dempsey: I preface my remarks by thanking Mr. Speaker most gratefully for the opportunity given to me to raise this sensitive matter even at this early hour of the morning. I felt compelled to do so after listening to a reply from the Solicitor-General for Scotland to a question that I raised only a few weeks ago.
  The Solicitor-General said in his reply that so far as he was aware the bargain basement prices to which I referred and the market prices were the same. It is because there is such a substantial difference between bargain basement prices and market prices, arising out of the procedure known as warrant sales, that I sought to raise the matter today. I am advised that I may talk about the impact of legislation but not about the legislation itself, and I do not intend to do so.
  I believe that the Solicitor-General must have been under a considerable misapprehension to make the statement that he made on that occasion. When a warrant sale is granted by the sheriff court, the sheriff's officers come to the home after advertising the sale and they poind, to use a Scottish word, the different items and price them. Their only concern in pricing them is to ensure that the global sum required to pay the debt owed by the debtor shall be recovered. In the pricing of the items, there is no relation whatever to the actual price that would be obtained on a fair market.
  I have studied this matter for many years. Having been brought up in the distributive trade, I hope that the Minister will respect the knowledge that I have gained as a result of practical experience during my working life in dealing with this problem.
  To give the House some indication of what is involved, I decided to look back at some of my notes and some of the events that I had noted. As I wished to give as clear a picture as possible of what the debate involved, I decided to relate the percentages of the original costs for which items were sold in warrant sales. For example, a 4-yd by 3-yd carpet was sold at 16 per cent. of the cost paid by the debtor involved. A three-piece suite and a gas cooker were sold at 12·5 per cent. of their original cost. A television set was sold at 11 per cent. of its original cost. A washing machine and a hearth rug were sold at 8 per cent. of their original cost. I have mentioned only a few items. I could cite double or treble that number of items from my experience of the injustice imposed on the unfortunate debtor as a result of this procedure. Sheriffs' officers are concerned only with getting sufficient money from the items to pay the debt.
  In one case—well known to me—a person received a warrant sales notice for £300. The sheriff's officers moved in. They itemised enough commodities in the man's small business to raise £300. After they had done so, the individual involved brought in valuers to estimate the value of the goods and effects pounded by the sheriff's officers. The value turned out to be not £300 but slightly over £3,000. That is 10 times as much. Therefore, the sheriff's officers are not qualified to deal with the pricing of household goods. They are not employed in that trade. For long and wearily I have felt that auctioneers should be
  904
  brought in in such circumstances. They should auction the items, because they would get a fair return for the items which bore more relation to their price.
  As a member of Lanark county council, I know that we had our own sheriff's officer. I spoke to his assistant only this week. He assured me that in his 15-year association with the sheriff's officers' department the goods arid household effects of debtors had been substantially underestimated by sheriff's officers in warrant sales. As a result, the sheriff's officers' employed by the county council constantly used to call the auctioneer. It was possible not only to pay the debtor from the sale of the goods but to pay the auctioneer's fees and the cost of transport whilst still retaining a surplus. The surplus was then handed to the unfortunate debtor as a bonus.
  I appeal to the Minister to consider that aspect of the case and to remember that no country within the EEC adopts that system. Indeed, England and Wales do not even use that system. In England and Wales, through the bailiff arrangements, auctioneers are brought in to auction the goods to ensure that the unfortunate debtor gets a fair deal and a fair return for the goods and household effects that he has sacrificed in trying to pay his debts.
  There is one way, without legislation, in which the scale of the problem could be reduced, and I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to use his good offices to prevail upon the credit concerns to curb the enthusiasm of the slick doorstep salesmen who prevail upon naive and weak-willed housewives to accept credit facilities beyond their ability to pay. If he could curb that activity, it would reduce the need to rely on the warrant sales procedure. The amount or irrecoverable debt would then be minimal and could easily be absorbed in the trading account of an undertaking.
  Throughout my earlier life I was involved in a large-scale credit undertaking, and never once did we have to adopt the iniquitous practice of warrant sales. I hope that the Minister will take appropriate action to end this form of exploitation of unfortunate people who are tortured in soul and conscience by their liability to pay their way.
  12.42 am
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) because tomorrow I have a Private Member's Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the system of warrant sales and to introduce an alternative system of debt collection.
  I am glad that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is here tonight to reply to the debate. I hope that he will respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend and also to the points that I shall put to him.
  If there are only 300 warrant sales taking place annually in Scotland, that is 300 too many. Many more such sales are advertised, and many more poindings or official evaluations and earmarkings of articles take place than warrant sales. It is a terrible threat to many people, their families, their relatives and others who just happen to be in the place of domicile at the time when the sheriff's officers arrive and use their threatening tactics.
  I believe that the Solicitor-General is—or, at least, was—a member of the Faculty of Advocates. Early this year the faculty made some reformist proposals. Edo not accept that they were satisfactory, but at least the faculty came out in favour of the reform of the present legislation

  905
  concerning warrant sales. I hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will listen to the views of the faculty. Even the Tory Party reform group has made proposals on similar lines. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether he will be supporting my Private Member's Bill.
  12.45 am
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) for raising this matter on the Adjournment because it gives rise to public concern frequently as a result of public misunderstanding. I hope that I may put in proportion the concept of warrant sales.
  In our society almost everybody uses credit. People use credit for electricity and gas and for many things that they obtain from retail organisations. They use credit perhaps from banks, perhaps from credit card companies, or from hire purchase. They ask a tradesman to come quickly to mend a pipe or stop a leak. They use credit for their motor car. So credit and debt are a universal manifestation of how people carry on their business.
  One in four of all retailers' accounts requires pursuit, as does one in six of all lending organisation accounts. There is no civilised country that has abandoned the concept of compulsory sale as the eventual stop for the adjustment of credit and debt. Let us be clear about this. The creditor may be just as lowly and poor a person as the debtor; indeed, he may be poorer. The small plumber may be in a much more difficult situation in having to stay in credit that he cannot recover for a year than a debtor who owes him money. So let us understand that there is no balance between the creditor and the debtor—the creditor being presumed to be rich and wrong and the debtor to be poor and right.
  Let me put the matter in proportion. In 1979 there were in Scotland 226 warrant sales, of which two-thirds were in domestic situations and one-third against businesses or offices which did not pay their debts. That means that there were approximately 150 warrant sales, in which in 90 cases the goods were adjudged. That is to say, they were not sold off but were adjudged to the creditor. In many cases the poinding creditor does not even bother to collect or remove the goods. We start with more than 100,000 decrees, so we are down from 100,000 decrees of debt to 226, which reduce to 150. That filter effect is important. As the hon. Member said, it goes through the poinding, the instruction of sale and the advertisement of sale, all the way down from over 100,000 to 226, because between 90 and 99 per cent. of all debts are eventually adjudicated by informal debt procedures. That results in a very small proportion of warrant sales.
  It takes up to a year for the procedure to arrive at a warrant sale. Were the situation to be, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said, that a person with a carpet worth £3,000 had it sold for £300, within the year he could easily have raised funds to settle that debt on the basis of selling some article that he owned. For every 350 decrees there is at most one warrant sale.
  Who asks for warrant sales? Local authorities ask for them; public utilities ask for them; professional services ask for them; personal services ask for them. Central Government ask for them.
  Mr. Canavan: Your Government.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Central Government. It is important to understand that the number of warrant sales that any one retail outlet will ask for in a year will be very rare. It is a very rare procedure for any organisation to undertake, but it is undertaken in the ultimate by a very large number of undertakings, both public and private.
  Mr. Canavan: Tell us about the advertisements.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Of course there are advertisements. As I have said, the filter effect from the decrees down to the warrant sales results in between 90 per cent. and 99 per cent. of debts being recovered——
  Mr. Canavan: It is intimidation.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: —or adjusted as a result of this procedure.
  The hon. Gentleman may speak of intimidation, but a person is owed money and a person owes money, and the procedures result in over 90 per cent. and up to 99 per cent. being satisfied as a result of those procedures.
  Mr. Canavan: And some people commit suicide.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I hope that the Solicitor-General will not resent it if I say that he sounds a little complacent. His figures are no doubt accurate, but there is a great deal of anxiety engendered, and a great deal of cost is incurred to the individual by the filter process to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.
  On 13 May the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was impossible to separate out from the general review of the law of diligence the question of warrant sales. Will he reconsider that point? Only last week the Faculty of Advocates made a specific recommendation for the reform of procedures to remove some of these anxieties. The Law Commission produced three or four weighty reports making specific recommendations for the reform of the procedure. Even if the Solicitor-General does not agree with abolition, will he not accept that there is a genuine case for reform now, instead of waiting for the far-off general review of the law of diligence?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not consider that there is any case for abolition. No civilised country has ever abolished the ultimate concept of the compulsory sale of goods, and Scotland has no reason to be the first. It would give the ultimate right to be a debtor who had no necessity eventually to pay his debt.
  The Law Commission has published five consultative memoranda upon which anyone may comment, so that people may make recommendations. The Law Commission has not at any stage made a report or recommendations of its own.
  I do not suggest that the concept, because it is usefully used by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)—and wrongly used or abused—is evil. I do not consider that that is a reason for tearing away a small part of the law of diligence and taking the Law Commission's memorandum as a diktat, as opposed to a consultative document.
  There are enormous protections. When there was undervaluation in the case of Scottish Gas Board v Johnson in 1974, the sheriff did not allow the sale to proceed. In

  907
  SSEB v Carlisle, where it was held that the proceeds would probably not cover the expenses of the sale, it was not allowed to proceed.
  A sheriff's officer has a difficult and unpleasant task in carrying out the will of a creditor who may have been grossly wronged. Whatever else the debtor may be—perhaps he cannot pay, or has fallen on hard circumstances—he has obtained services, goods or credit from someone else who is having to bear that burden.
  The sifting process will take more than a year and only a tiny minority of cases end in warrant sales. Frequently a judgment results in the debtor being left with his goods. I emphatically dismiss the claim that there is universal hardship. Warrant sales are the tiny pinhead of a vast number of adjudications.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being far too dismissive of the troubles and pains of the procedure. It is not good enough to quote judgments from sheriff courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that many people at the wrong end of undervaluation are unlikely to have the means to go to the sheriff court or the experience to deal with the processes that are required.
  If the hon. and learned Gentleman holds unsympathetically to the line that nothing can be done until the final recommendations of the Law Commission on diligence are available, will he give us some idea when they are expected, and what guidance Ministers are giving the commission about the urgency of producing that report?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member is exaggerating the situation. His references to undervaluation are not realistic. It has been suggested that one should go to the auction room. I could quote figures from auction rooms to answer the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie.
  Mr. Canavan: Quote them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill):Order.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If one goes into a shop and buys any article and then takes it to an auction room, one will get a fraction of its price.
  Mr. Canavan:Quote the figures.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: May I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire not to interrupt from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way and quote the figures that he says he can quote about——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt from a seated position.
  Mr. Canavan: I got up from my seat.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: But the Solicitor-General for Scotland has not given way.
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is too incapable to do so.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is, of course, a matter of great hardship and despair if a person eventually suffers a warrant sale. It is easy to become emotional about such matters, but they must be put into perspective. Of 100,000 decrees of debt, 99·9 per cent. are settled through the prescribed process and one must remember that for every debt there is a creditor. Any complaint of undervaluation or harassment—and none has been substantiated by those who have inquired into them—will always be investigated by the sheriff.
  The ultimate equity that all countries take is the compulsory sale of goods, and I do not believe that, there is in Scotland any inequity that could be avoided in any other country. If improvements can be made, let them be proposed in the recommendations of the Law Commission. In the meantime, let us silence the emotional pretence that warrant sales are a widespread gross hardship.
  Mr. Canavan: The Solicitor-General for Scotland's reply was a disgrace.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  African Development Bank
  African Development Bank
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Development Council
  Development Council
  World Food Council
  World Food Council
TRADE
  Company Registrations
  Company Registrations
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Air Navigation (Safety)
  Air Navigation (Safety)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay Research Unit
  Pay Research Unit
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Poland
  Poland
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Civil Service Pay
  Civil Service Pay
  Mexico Summit Meeting
  Mexico Summit Meeting
  Wales
  Wales
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Unemployed Young Persons
  Unemployed Young Persons
  Terrorism (Fatalities)
  Terrorism (Fatalities)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Member's Correspondence)
  Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Member's Correspondence)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education (Modern Languages)
  Higher Education (Modern Languages)
  Universities (Student-Staff Ratios)
  Universities (Student-Staff Ratios)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Research Councils (Purchasing Policy)
  Research Councils (Purchasing Policy)
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Natural Environment Research Council
  16 to 19-year-olds
  16 to 19-year-olds
  Further Education (Costs)
  Further Education (Costs)
  Mathematics (Teaching)
  Mathematics (Teaching)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Commercial Bank of Wales
  Commercial Bank of Wales
  Education Costs (Tax Relief)
  Education Costs (Tax Relief)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Husbands and Wives (Taxation)
  Husbands and Wives (Taxation)
  One-armed Bandits
  One-armed Bandits
  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Clearing Banks (Charging Policies)
  Clearing Banks (Charging Policies)
  North Sea Oil (Company Taxation)
  North Sea Oil (Company Taxation)
WALES
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Arans (Access)
  Arans (Access)
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  District Heating Schemes
  District Heating Schemes
ENERGY
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Hydroelectric Power Stations
  Hydroelectric Power Stations
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  British Gas (Retailing Activities)
  British Gas (Retailing Activities)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tartrazine
  Tartrazine
  Food Additives
  Food Additives
  Food (Ingredient Labelling)
  Food (Ingredient Labelling)
  Food (Colouring)
  Food (Colouring)
  Injurious Food and Drugs
  Injurious Food and Drugs
Employment
  Unemployment (London)
  Unemployment (London)
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  European Community (Computer Training)
  European Community (Computer Training)
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Training Centres
  Training Centres
  Wage Bargaining
  Wage Bargaining
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Young Persons (Training)
  Young Persons (Training)
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Trade Unions (Immunities)
  Trade Unions (Immunities)
  Manufacturing Industry (Productivity)
  Manufacturing Industry (Productivity)
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Working Population
  Working Population
  Secretary of State (Visit to Germany)
  Secretary of State (Visit to Germany)
  Redundant Apprentices (Training)
  Redundant Apprentices (Training)
  Redundancies (Stockport)
  Redundancies (Stockport)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Restrictive Practices
  Restrictive Practices
  Consultative Procedures (Code of Practice)
  Consultative Procedures (Code of Practice)
  New Industrial Skills
  New Industrial Skills
  Civil Service Dispute
  Civil Service Dispute
  Unemployment (Preston)
  Unemployment (Preston)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  >Professional and Executive Register
  >Professional and Executive Register
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Arbitration Procedures
  Arbitration Procedures
  Vehicle Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Vehicle Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Mrs. R. Griffin
  Mrs. R. Griffin
  Lost Girocheques
  Lost Girocheques
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Torpedoes
  Torpedoes
ENVIRONMENT
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Greater London Council (Town Expansion Schemes)
  Greater London Council (Town Expansion Schemes)
TRANSPORT
  Midland Link Motorways
  Midland Link Motorways
INDUSTRY
  Foundry Industry
  Foundry Industry
  Forging Companies (Energy Use)
  Forging Companies (Energy Use)
  Castings (Imports)
  Castings (Imports)
  British Telecommunications (External Financing Limit)
  British Telecommunications (External Financing Limit)
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  British Gas
  British Gas
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Households (Unemployed Persons)
  Households (Unemployed Persons)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Incomes in Cornwall
  Incomes in Cornwall
  War Disabled Persons (Benefits)
  War Disabled Persons (Benefits)
  Safety of Medicines
  Safety of Medicines
  Food Additives
  Food Additives
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Hot Water Cylinders (Insulation)
  Hot Water Cylinders (Insulation)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Lord Bishopston
The Right Honourable Edward Stanley Bishop, having been created Baron Bishopston, of Newark in the County of Nottingham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wells-Pestell and the Lord Peart.

Lord Beloff
Sir Max Beloff, Knight, having been created Baron Beloff, of Wolvercote in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Blake and the Lord Marshall of Leeds.
The Lord Manton—Took the Oath.

Namibian Independence: Discussions
2.42 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the recent discussion by the Western Contact Group on measures to secure the independence of Namibia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Foreign Ministers of the five Western Governments met in Rome on 3rd of May and in a communiqué, the text of which I am circulating in the Official Report, reiterated their Governments' commitment to an internationally acceptable settlement of the Namibia issue. Senior officials of the five have since met in Washington to consider ways forward.
Following is the text of the communiqué referred to above:
1. The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America met in Rome on 3rd May 1981, to review the situation in Namibia. The Five Ministers expressed their Governments' deep concern over the failure of the Geneva Conference and their regret over the outcome of the recent consideration of the issue by the Security Council. They noted, however, that the discussions in the Security Council indicated a general desire on the part of the great majority of participants in the debate for the five to continue their efforts in the search for a solution to this problem.
2. The five Ministers reiterated their Governments' commitment to an internationally acceptable settlement to the Namibia issue, one of the major problems of the African continent, the solution of which they see as essential for the stability of Southern
1108
Africa. The Ministers reaffirmed their conviction that only a settlement under the aegis of the United Nations would be acceptable to the international community.
3. The Ministers stated their belief that Security Council Resolution 435 provides a solid basis for the achievement of a negotiated settlement and agreed that continued efforts should be made to bring Namibia to early independence in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435. At the same time, the Ministers recognised that the settlement plan as endorsed by Resolution 435 with the complementary measures that have been added to it, such as the proposal for a demilitarised zone, has not proved sufficient to bring about implementation. They agreed that the search for a settlement should be intensified and that ways to strengthen the existing plan should be considered.
4. The Ministers believe that there is a need to establish understanding among all parties about the shape of the future, independent Namibia. Accordingly they instructed officials to develop proposals encompassing measures, including constitutional arrangements, with the aim of enhancing prospects of achieving a negotiated settlement. Senior officials of the five will meet in late May for this purpose.
5. The Ministers affirmed that the close cooperation of all the parties concerned is essential to the effort to bring about a negotiated solution. The Western five intend to consult with all interested parties in exploring and developing specific proposals which would facilitate a settlement.
6. Finally, the Ministers agreed that the Namibia issue has been on the international agenda for too long. They committed their governments to vigorous action in the effort to bring Namibia to independence at an early date.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that negotiations have been held up by the new American proposal? Does not that proposal depart from the settlement suggested by the five western powers and United Nations Resolution 435? In seeking a constructive solution, has the Minister noted the statement yesterday in Salisbury by Mr. Nujuma, the President of SWAPO, that he would accept a Lancaster House type of conference if South Africa's illegal administration was ended and United Nations authority accepted up to the election? Would not United Nations withdrawal of its support from SWAPO before the election be a contribution to a solution of this problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a slightly involved supplementary question, but the short answer is that we must take all parties with us in these negotiations if we are to reach an acceptable settlement.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the advance which has been made is that the five-power initiative, which has been going on for about 18 months, is now, comparatively speaking, receiving American support? Will Her Majesty's Government very carefully nurture this support?—because without it even the best efforts of the European powers may prove fruitless.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right that the five need to go forward with a degree of consensus in these matters and, of course, the position of the United States is crucial.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say that the United Nations has eased negotiations by revising its resolution that SWAPO is the sole authoritative voice for all the black African parties in Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the formal position of the United Nations in this matter is, of course, contained in the resolution of the Security Council and not in the resolution of the General Assembly, to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, is it not to be understood that the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance has yet been granted a hearing by the United Nations?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. It is, of course, the case that the DTA was denied a hearing at a recent United Nations meeting. We expressed our views on that at the time.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realize—I am sure he does—that areas as primitive and tribal as Namibia cannot enjoy independence in any real sense, but that what we are really deciding is whose puppet Namibia will be? Surely it is important from our point of view that she should be the puppet of a friend of ours.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, what is important is that the people of Namibia should have a chance to decide these things for themselves.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, does the United States proposal for a Bill of Rights, which is now being considered by the five western Governments, include economic restrictions? Although one welcomes civil rights for the white minority, must we not be very careful not to contravene the African demand that natural resources should be nationally owned? Is this not particularly necessary, because 40 per cent. of the enriched uranium in this country comes from Namibia? The French Socialist Party, now dominant in France where our uranium is processed, has stated that it will break trade links with Namibia unless a satisfactory solution is reached.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wish that I had the mental agility of the noble Lord and was able to offer him a comprehensive answer comparable with his supplementary question. I would simply say that it is important not to consider each of these matters in isolation, but to look for a solution to the whole problem.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I beg the noble Lord not to assume that because we are white, with the arrogance of our civilisation—with its yobboes at football crowds and elsewhere, muggings and murders in the streets—we are more advanced than some of these so-called uncivilised people who live peacefully in the bosom of their gods?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I suggested any such thing as was inherent in the noble Lord's supplementary question.

The Defence Estimates
2.48 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the
1110
Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to revise the Defence Estimates which have been circulated; and whether a date has been fixed for consideration of the Estimates by this House.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, planned defence expenditure remains as published in the recent Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 8175) and the Supply Estimates 1981–82, though the latter will have to be increased to take account of the Armed Forces pay award. The longer term review concentrates on how best to apportion the increasing expenditure. As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, a Motion in my name to take note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1981 will appear on the Order Paper in the near future. I understand that the debate will take place on Wednesday, 1st July.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply and should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him on having survived the massacre, which seems to me to be a tribute to the House of Lords. Can the noble Viscount clarify the issue somewhat because of what has appeared in the press media and in other quarters? Do the Government intend to revise any part of the Defence Estimates which have already been submitted to both Houses of Parliament, although we have not debated them? If there is to be a review, what is the intention? If there is to be any fundamental change, or if there are to be only minor changes, may we have an assurance that both Houses of Parliament will be able to debate the whole subject of defence before the Summer Recess?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. First of all, as my initial Answer was intended to imply, we are firm on the increase in real terms of the budget by approximately 3 per cent. per annum, the estimate currently being 8 per cent. over three years. So far as the revision of the estimate is concerned as a result of the long-term review, this stems from the over-expenditure of the current budget—which, as I have said, is being increased—and that in turn stems from the escalation of costs of modern equipment combined with the ever-changing threat backed by modern technology.
Against this background my right honourable friend, in the usual long-term review which takes place every year, has this year had to look with greater care than ever on how to allocate this budget as, due to the cost escalations I have mentioned, the bids for the budget exceed the increase being made. Both Houses of Parliament will obviously have opportunities to debate it, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced in the other place that he plans to make a Statement in July, with time for a debate in the other House in July.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask a further question? As there seems to be some dubiety about the

1111
intentions of the Government—and I say that without meaning any offence; this matter of defence should, in my view, be above party anyway—may I ask whether we can get an assurance, if it is possible to give one, that there is to be no weakening of our maritime strength, because, in the opinion of I think a majority of Members of Parliament of both Houses, that would be an action that would make our defence much of a nonsense?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I appreciate and indeed endorse the noble Lord's sentiment that defence should be kept as far as is possible above party. So far as the noble Lord's second supplementary about maritime strength is concerned, there is no question but that we have to meet all the possible threats from our potential enemies, including the maritime area. The review, against the background of the huge escalating costs of modern equipment, is how best to do that. I do not think I can go any further at this stage in anticipating the outcome of the current long-term review.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, by the time we have the promised debate in July will the House be told how many officers and men will be sacked by the Royal Navy? Does the Minister realise what enormous damage has already been done to the morale of the service by the threatened cuts? Can he say whether the cost savings which will be achieved by these cuts are more, or less, than the cost of the Trident programme?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's question is really relevant to the situation. We are not cutting. We are increasing defence expenditure far more than previous Governments have done, and shall continue to do it. It is a question of how to allocate that increase. So far as the morale of the Services is concerned, including the Royal Navy, which will have an important role—and its submarine role for sure is expanding—I believe that it is much higher than is anticipated, and I say that against a short background of having been the Minister for the Navy as well as the Minister of Defence Procurement for a week.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, does the noble Viscount really mean that the Government are not cutting defence? What does that mean to men in the Territorial Army who are having their man-training days cut?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not know whether I can be clearer on this point. The numbers in our Services since, say, 1951 have come down very materially as weaponry has become much more formidable and much more costly. This is the central long-term problem, apart from various short-term problems. This is the inevitable evolution of technology and the awesome power of modern weapons. As such there will be changes and there will be some cuts in numbers of some parts of the Services, but the overall situation is that our budget is being increased by 3 per cent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the review he is carrying out has the greatest sympathy
1112
with the role of the voluntary reserves and territorials as he has stated in the other place in the recent debate. I can only ask the noble Lord to await the outcome of the review to see his decisions in relation to the Territorial Army and the reserves.

Ambulance Personnel: Training
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in favour of advanced training for ambulance personnel undertaking emergency work, so that they are trained in the life support skills.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, there is evidence that advanced training may enable ambulancemen to provide an improved service to patients, but it is not yet clear that the overall benefits are sufficient to justify the cost, which would in any event need to be weighed against other claims on National Health Service resources. The Government will also wish to take into account the report we are expecting shortly from the National Health Service Working Party on Patient Transport Services. While this has not been considering training as such, its views on the more general role of the ambulance service could well have implications for training needs. A number of ambulancemen voluntarily undergo training in more advanced techniques and we are aware that some health authorities have their own schemes; this is a matter for them to decide in relation to other claims on the resources available locally.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the overall cost of disability arising from the lack of life support skills is likely to be far greater than the cost of training selected ambulance personnel in these skills? Is he aware that many casualty departments in hospitals have closed and that patients have to travel a long way? Is it right that there should be marvellous, expensive, highly skilled intensive care units and the patient dies, or becomes disabled, on the way?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I think that this matter is slightly more complicated than it seems to be at first sight. First of all, of the work of the ambulancemen less than 10 per cent. is on emergency cases. The whole question of the role and structure of the ambulance service has just been reviewed. The report is in front of the regional health authorities at the moment. It will come to the Secretary of State probably next month, and the whole situation is being looked at.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, following on from that, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Secretary of State will take into consideration the situation in America and Australasia where paramedics very successfully undertake this work?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords; the whole experience in this country of various experimental schemes and the experience abroad will certainly be taken into account. I know that there are very successful schemes in Australasia and America, although of course they are localised.
Lord Segal: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in many cases lives have been saved by the skilled emergency treatment rendered by ambulance teams? Could not some distinctive badge of merit be awarded to those who have specially qualified in this highly skilled advanced training?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am certainly aware that many lives have been saved by ambulance-men. The noble Baroness is asking whether further advanced training should be given to them. This is a complicated matter which also affects the unions.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of those who die from coronary thrombosis, about half die within the first two hours and that of those, about half die from rhythm disturbances which could be reversed with the right treatment at the right time, which is in the ambulance? Is he further aware that in Brighton, ambulance drivers have voluntarily submitted to training in monitored heart care, defibrillation and so on with quite spectacular results in terms of the saving of lives? If that can happen in Brighton, why can it not happen elsewhere?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am well aware of the Brighton cardiac scheme and the successes they have had there. The general view is that this must be for the local authorities to consider in line with the resources they have, and it is questionable whether the number of lives saved is satisfactory compared with the cost of the service. This is a very important matter and is one of the main aspects that will be considered.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, is the Minister aware that expert resuscitation is vital to save oxygen being cut off from the brain, which causes mental handicap?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sure that is true, my Lords.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, when the Secretary of State is considering this matter, will special thought be given to the needs of rural areas, where casualty departments are often a very long way from the scene of the accident and ambulances must travel enormous distances before arriving at the place where the patient is suffering and is in need? Is the Minister therefore aware of the very special need that exists in some of the isolated parts of the country?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I do not wish to disappoint my noble friend, but obviously this is a difficult matter when it comes to the rural areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned, the important thing is to get the ambulance to the patient very quickly. To do that in isolated rural areas would seem a very difficult thing to do.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, would the Minister be willing to consult the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention who have looked into this subject for the past 10 years, who are very knowledgeable about it, who run a number of very successful courses in the southern counties and who voluntarily give a certificate to those who become trained up to the point which we are discussing?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords; all the people who are interested in this matter will be consulted and in fact have been consulted on the report which is now going to regional health authorities.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: Do ambulance personnel undergo regular refresher training to keep up with ever-changing modern techniques, my Lords?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I believe the answer is that it varies, my Lords. Certainly it is the intention that all ambulancemen should have, I think within two years, refresher courses; I am not able to say that they all have them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in view of the unsatisfactory reply which the Minister gave to my noble husband about rural areas, may I ask whether the Secretary of State and the Government will very seriously consider introducing a helicopter flying squad service for the rural areas?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I would rather doubt that, quite honestly, my Lords, because we must consider the costs of quite simple arrangements, and I think that to have helicopters flying all over the country to outlying areas would be a very advanced move and unlikely to be considered at any rate in the early stages.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that they have such a service in Southern Ireland?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I believe they do, my Lords.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think it would be appropriate if we moved on to the next Question.

Animals for Research: Acquisition
3.4 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the grave disquiet aroused in millions of pet owners by the reply to Lord Houghton of Sowerby's Question (columns 552 and 553 of the Official Report of 12th May); why it required an illegal act to discover that a stolen pet had been

1115
acquired for animal research; whether they will consider making it a condition of licensing research that the dealer or pet shop supplying the animals should be licensed under the Pet Animals Act 1951; and whether they will introduce legislation to ensure all animals for research under licence are bred specifically for that purpose.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware that many people are concerned about the possibility that pets may be stolen for supply to laboratories for experimental purposes. It would not be appropriate to attach a condition to licences issued under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 that animals used for experimental purposes should be obtained only from suppliers licensed under the Pet Animals Act 1951, since that Act applies only to businesses engaged in selling animals as pets. The theft or dishonest handling of stolen pets, however, are offences for which very substantial maximum penalties are available. The Government have announced their intention of introducing legislation when parliamentary time permits to modernise the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, and the legislative proposals will include provisions extending control to the breeding and supply of animals intended to be used for experimental purposes.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that it comes down to this: that an animal which is stolen may go for research, while one taken under legislation may not? Is it not a most extraordinary situation that an animal stolen may go for research while an animal collected as a stray may not?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, the position was set out very clearly by my noble friend Lady Young in her reply to a Question for Written Answer on 12th May 1981 from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to an article I wrote in World Medicine in January of this year from which, with the permission of the House, I will quote one sentence:
"No-one would risk experimenting with an animal whose history he did not know and which might have been planted on him by anti-vivisectionists after being mendaciously reported stolen to the police"?
Does not the noble Lord consider it a most extraordinary thing that an unknown dumb animal has been stolen and linked to an owner of unknown name and address? Is not that a feat unprecedented in the annals of detection?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to the article written by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Government's forthcoming legislation to update the 1876 Act comes before Parliament, the public will look for a complete clean-up of the procurement and care of animals for laboratory
1116
use and that that must form an important part of the legislation?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, as I said in my original reply—I emphasise this—the Government are intending to include in legislation the breeding and supply of animals intended to be used for experimental purposes.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that a most disgraceful affair actually took place and, if so, have Sheffield University apologised and expressed their regret and distress that the incident took place?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I am not aware of any official reply or apology being sent to the Home Office or to any other source.

Business
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. The House will adjourn at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately three-quarters of an hour. During that adjournment the Report stage of the Insurance Companies Bill and the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill will be taken. It might also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available on Thursday of this week.
Local Authorities' Current Expenditure
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Bellwin will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on local authorities' current expenditure. It has been agreed through the usual channels that a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making in another place, on local authorities' current expenditure in Wales, will not be repeated, but, with the leave of the House. I shall arrange for that Statement to be circulated in the Official Report.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Power to change year of revaluation]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("Provided that that different financial year is not more than two years later than that originally specified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the mysterious words of the amendment mean that whereas the Government propose (as in Clause 1) to give power to the Secretary of State to delay for an unspecified time the usual quinquennial review of valuations in

1117
Scotland, I seek to limit the delay to two years. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I suggested that the period should be one year. I think that the suggestion met with a certain amount of sympathy, and the one noble Lord on the other side of the Committee who showed any interest at all in the matter came to the conclusion that two years would probably be right, and on that basis I withdrew the amendment. It might well be that had there been a Division there would have been a narrow defeat.
The point is that people in Scotland are now probably more sensitive than ever before about the question of rating, and of course everyone agrees that the rating system is wrong. The party opposite is committed to doing something about it, and many people are concerned that while the Government are spending all this time on local government, they are bringing forward no proposals whatever for any change in the rating system. A part of the rating system is concerned with the valuation of property, be it domestic, commercial, or industrial property. Rates are rising higher and higher—an aspect of the matter that we shall be discussing in relation to a later part of the Bill. The fact is that rates are rising higher and higher. There are inequalities in the valuations between one type of property and another, and the longer that that situation continues before there is a revaluation, an opportunity to put it right, the greater is the injustice done.
There is no doubt that the power to be taken by the Government is purely and simply to delay the revaluation. This is not unusual in England, but in Scotland there has been a delay only once since the quinquennial revaluations were instituted, and that was subsequent to local government reform. We can well understand why that was necessary at the time. The 1973 Act, reforming local government, introduced by the party opposite, delayed the coming quinquennial review by two years. I think that it was delayed from 1976 until 1978.
Bearing in mind the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of a 2-year period, as well as past experience, including the Government's decision in respect of one quinquennial review which was delayed, I think it fair to propose a period of delay of not more than two years. That would still give the Secretary of State the power to delay, but his power would be limited. Taking into account the injustices that arise because of longer delays—and people in England will probably be well aware of this—I suggest that the delay should be limited to two years. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the noble Lord in what he has said, in particular his reference to the enormous increase in rates all over Scotland. I have looked up what I have been required to pay year by year and I find that in 1978–79 I paid £261, using rough figures. For 1979–80 it was £290. For 1980–81 it was £390. For 1981–82 it is £542. Things are getting into a ridiculous state, and I strongly support what the noble Lord has said about a 2-year period being quite enough. I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Earl the Minister has to say in reply.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross
1118
of Marnock, has told the House, we examined this matter in Committee and I undertook to take it away and consider whether an amendment which would in effect fetter the jurisdiction, or the discretion, of the Secretary of State might be applicable. I also recall that a number of your Lordships expressed sympathy with the view that a restriction be placed on the power contained in Clause 1 to postpone rating revaluations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has quite correctly said, different powers have been chosen as between Scotland and England and Wales. In England and Wales no revaluation will be held at all until such date as the Secretary of State for the Environment chooses to specify. However, in Scotland the assumption remains that revaluations will take place at 5-yearly intervals, as prescribed by statute, unless the Secretary of State provides otherwise.
On past experience of postponed revaluations it might be argued that there is something to be said for a 2-year restriction, as proposed by the amendment. So far as I know, previous postponements have been for no more than two years at a time, but as I explained in Committee, the Government have under review the rating system, in particular the domestic rating system, and it is possible that the results of the review could be such as would justify a fairly lengthy postponement of revaluation. Clearly, the exact timing would depend on the circumstances, but it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to find himself requiring to postpone a revaluation for, say, three years, but unable to do so because of the effect of an amendment of this kind.
It might well be that circumstances would require only a 1-year or a 2-year postponement, but equally it could be that a longer postponement would be justified. The uncertainty over the future of the rating system is such that I suggest to the House that there is a very strong case for maximum flexibility. I would remind your Lordships that the possibility does not exist that revaluation would be postponed far into the future in some capricious way, or on the personal whim of a Secretary of State. Any order under Clause 1 must come before both Houses of Parliament for approval and that, I suggest, is a considerable deterrent to any misuse of the power. I can see no reason for a postponement to be sought unnecessarily, given that revaluations serve to adjust rate burdens and to provide a more up-to-date basis for distributing rate support grant.
I entirely take the point of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and it is because people like him, indeed all of us, find ourselves in ever increasing difficulties, that the Government are considering with the greatest of care the whole system of rating, in particular domestic rating. But as I suggest, the situation shows that the maximum flexibility is desirable in this case, and it is for those reasons that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will not press his amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Ross will find that reply exceedingly disappointing. The Minister has reiterated that the Government have the rating system under continuing review. According to the figures quoted by my noble friend, the next revaluation, if there is no deferment,

1119
will not take place until 1983. So, given the two years which he has suggested as being the limit for deferment in his amendment, that means that the Government would have until 1985. Is the Minister seriously asking us to believe that the consideration, which presumably has been in their mind ever since they were elected two years ago, cannot be completed by 1985, assuming that electorally they are given the opportunity to carry on until then? It seems an extraordinary snail's pace at which to be considering this matter. It seems to me that the acceptance of this amendment, if it does not do anything else, at least should encourage the Government to put a little more speed into their consideration of the rating system. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not find it possible to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hughes is quite right: I found the reply very unsatisfactory. I cannot understand this repetition of the word "flexibility", as though it has some special virtue of its own, bearing in mind that we are being reasonably flexible. We are giving the Government two years' delay; and remembering that the Government will probably have to make up their mind about it at least a year before the revaluation (because they must start some time earlier in order to get the job done in time for that particular year), they will need to start virtually next year, probably, although we have not had the information that they are going to delay for whatever period they make up their mind about. Bearing in mind that 1983 might be a difficult year, because it will probably be the year of a general election, and a general election means work for the electoral officer (who, in Scotland, is also the assessor) and his staff, there could be difficulties. They would need to know fairly soon whether or not the Government are going to delay.
It should also be borne in mind that if there is a delay of as much as two years it means that for two years longer there may be injustices as between one property-owner or industrialist and another. This covers everybody, even agriculture, because agriculture is de-rated in Scotland, but not the farmhouse, the domestic premises. In fact, I have discovered a new injustice. Lord Strathclyde tells me of the increase in his rates over the past two or three years. I am amazed at how little he pays, because I can tell him that I pay far more. This is the kind of thing that we shall come to—how you get information and what right you have to put it forward in relation to your rates.
The injustice could possibly be remedied, but can only be remedied at the time of revaluation. If you want your rates reduced between revaluations, there has to be some substantial change in respect of your own property. So it is a very important amendment from the point of view of property-owners but also from the point of view of tenants, because it is the occupier who pays the rates. I just cannot understand this feeling that the Government might like three, four or five years. I do not think it is fair to anybody. It is not logical to me.
The Government say, "Things are under review in respect of domestic rates". How long have they been under review? We have had Royal Commissions.
1120
In fact, in the case of the last one, I do not think the party opposite, as a party, gave evidence to it. We had the Layfield Commission. What has happened? Nothing. That is a few years ago; and there is no guarantee at all that we are on the point of making some great breakthrough in relation to the rating system. Valuation depends on the rating system, and of course valuation is where you get the inequities that arise.
No, I am afraid I cannot withdraw this amendment. I would ask your Lordships to give serious consideration to supporting this element of justice to Scotland.
3.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Lee of Newton, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Bacon, B.

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

Banks, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Blease, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Blyton, L.

Peart, L.

Brockway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Chitnis, L.

Porritt, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Collison, L.

Robbins, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rochester, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

St. Davids, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strauss, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Thurso, V.

Gosford, E.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Vernon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hankey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wigoder, L.

Henderson, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hughes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

John-Mackie. L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Davidson, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

de Clifford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Berkeley, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Blake, L.

Energlyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Exeter, M.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Falkland, V.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Foley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gage, V.

Cockfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Daventry, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

1121

Gridley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Newall, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Northchurch, B.

Hives, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Kemsley, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Portland, D.

Kinnaird, L.

Romney, E.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lindsey of Abingdon, E.

St. Germans, E.

Lloyd, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Savile, L.

Luke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sligo, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Somers, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tranmire, L.

Margadale L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mills, V.

Vickers, B.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Westbury, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Widgery, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Power to exclude certain lands and heritages from valuation or revaluation]:
3.33 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 41 and 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Clause 2 the Secretary of State takes a very wide power, in regard to any new valuation roll which is being made up, to introduce some new scheme which might apply to classes of lands and heritages as may be specified to be valued according to this new scheme. Then we get the new subsection (6A) which reads:
"… he may prescribe by order under this subsection (either or both)"—
he is taking no chances—
"a method whereby the net annual value of the specified lands and heritages shall be adjusted for the purposes of ascertaining their rateable value;
"such a method as regards the unspecified lands and heritages;
"and the order may prescribe different such methods as regards different valuation areas".
As I read this, it means that within valuation areas (which, for all practical purposes, are the regions) you will have a different method of valuing property in Strathclyde, in the Borders, in the Highlands and Islands and in the Grampian areas; whereas at the moment it is fixed and laid down by the 1956 Act in relation to the terms on which the Government indicate that the assessor must work. He is tied by the fact that in relation to property somebody would be able or prepared to pay to rent a property and the assessor must visualise that all the property is available for him to pick from. He is allowed no subjective treatments of any kind. This is what makes us wonder at times as to how things turn out as they do. Here we have some new system that we know nothing about applying only to certain properties; and the new method of valuation which is going to prescribe in an order and
1122
the order may prescribe different methods as regards different valuation areas.
This could have been understood if different classes had had to be valued, but it relates to different valuation areas. So you could be valuing property in one way in the Grampian region around Aberdeen and the North and in a different way in the Tayside or in Strathclyde. I think it takes a bit of believing that this is even contemplated. We did not have the opportunity of getting a full reason for this on Committee. We were very rushed on Committee, although the Committee sat until late at night.
I wonder whether the noble Earl will be prepared to give an explanation of this now and to tell us what is the intention of the Government, and to justify the inclusion of this particular power to prescribe different methods in regard to different valuation areas. I know that it will not take him long, but I hope that he can give a more satisfactory explanation than his last one. I see that he has some special adviser by his side, but I feel that the noble Lord the Chief Whip will be hurrying him along rather than giving him satisfactory wording for the House. But the reason why I moved this amendment is that I really want to know. I am mystified as to how it will work and I want to know why it was introduced at all. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment was one of two linked amendments which were made in another place as a result of points which were made and accepted by honourable friends of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. In fact, the words which the amendment seeks to delete from the Bill in lines 41 and 42 of page 2 are of a piece with the requirement in the new subsection (6B) that the method of adjustment must be such as to preserve the pre-existing ratio of rateable values in each valuation area. It was concluded in another place that this was the fairest way to proceed and that an all-Scotland adjustment would risk inequity for the ratepayers in areas where the ratio of rateable values was significantly different from the Scottish average.
I can illustrate it in this way: it is essential in the interests of equity to have it possible to prescribe different methods for different areas. I can illustrate the distortions which could arise because for instance the ratios between domestic and non-domestic rateable values for Scotland as a whole at the 1978 revaluation was 1:1.8; in Dumfries and Galloway it was 1:1.5, while in Shetland, because of the Sullom Voe development, it was 1:24. A degree of flexibility as between areas is essential. But I stress that there is a major safeguard in that the flexibility is only in the method and not in the result to be achieved by applying the method. It must be such as will preserve the existing ratio of rateable values.
That is a sufficient guarantee that there is no possibility of using a partial revaluation to alter the distribution of the rating burden as between classes of property, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was most concerned about. Any method used will be fair and reasonable. As an added safety factor, the noble Lord will be aware that before prescribing a method or methods the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I hope that the noble

1123
Lord will see that the provision in the clause does not have the sinister quality which he might think and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is not a question of the sinister quality that I am concerned about. I am concerned about the actual facts as to how things will turn out. I am certainly glad to notice that there has to be consultation with the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council. Remember one of the duties of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council when it was originally created in the 1956 Act was to try to get uniformity of valuation between property and property, not a ratio within an area.
As I was saying, it is to try to get uniformity between properties no matter where they be in Scotland. I remember an amendment being made to the Valuation Act which allowed anyone appealing against his valuation not just to cite a property within his own area or within his own neighbourhood but say someone in Ayr being able to cite what he regarded as a similar property in Aberdeen.
It is all very well for the noble Earl to, say, that this is to get the right ratio within the area between different classes of property. That is probably desirable from that point of view; but when he says that the result itself will not be out of harmony with the existing situation, I am afraid that I cannot believe him. In rating—although I am much more familiar in the actual practice of it in relation to rate support grant—what do you do there? You start at the end and work back to the formula. Here we are going to start from the method and work from the method and get a satisfactory result. I am perfectly sure that it is not going to be satisfactory between one area and another. Let us remember that aggregate assessment has a lot to do with the distribution formula when it comes to distributing rate support grant. This is why it is so important.
I do not care whether somebody in another place had ideas about this and honourable friends of mine in another place suggested that this should be done. I do not think that it is altogether wise. I certainly have not seen an adequate explanation as to how we are going to get fairness within the area and between the areas—far less between one occupier and another in respect of similar properties. When it comes to the allocation of rate support grant, there can easily be injustice. The Government themselves manipulate this in relation to fixing a formula between needs and resources. It used to be 1 to 4 and now it is 1 to 9.
The Government have all sorts of powers, but this is something that is going to last and recoil. I am not satisfied yet. If the Minister would like to have another go, I am prepared to be persuaded. If he will say he will have a look at this between now and the next stage of the Bill I shall gladly withdraw the amendment because I know he wants to beat a hasty retreat right now in relation to something that is happening near the Scottish Office.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with leave, I do not think that I can help the House further. This was something that was exhaustively considered in another place. We are not talking about different methods
1124
of valuation and revaluation but different methods of determining the ratio between a revalued and an un-revalued property. That I suggest is quite a different matter. There really is nothing more to look at. These provisions were put in in the interests of equity as a result of the points which were valid and acceptable and made by the noble Lord's friends. Who am I to say that they were talking nonsense?
Lord Ross of Marnock: You must not mix up friends with colleagues—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this is Report stage and I think that the noble Lord has already spoken.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thought I was allowed to withdraw an amendment by speech. Since I am not allowed to withdraw it, I shall just sit still.
On Question, amendment negatived.

Local Authorities' Current Expenditure
3.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on current expenditure by local authorities.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a Statement later today, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a Statement shortly.
"My department has now analysed the revised estimates of local authorities in England and Wales for the volume of their current expenditure in 1980–81 and the budget plans of English local authorities for 1981–82. In the light of this analysis I have today put proposals to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.
"Honourable Members will recall that when local authorities in England and Wales originally submitted their budgets for 1980–81 these suggested a planned excess in the volume of current expenditure by local government as a whole of some £740 million at November 1979 prices. This was 5·6 per cent. above the Government's public expenditure plans. As a consequence, in June last year I called for revised budgets which led local authorities to reduce this planned excess to some £350 million at 1979 prices, or 2·6 per cent. above the Government targets.
"In order further to reduce this remaining excess, the Government asked the House to approve the withholding of £200 million from the increase order

1125
for England and Wales made in January 1981 on the understanding that we would be prepared to restore all or part of that sum if the outturn figures for 1980–81 showed an acceptable reduction.
"The analysis of the revised estimates for 1980–81 indicates that there will still be a volume excess, which the local authority associations estimate could range from £50 million to £250 million in England. Final figures for the outturn expenditure in 1980–81 are however not yet available. I shall have to wait therefore until more accurate outturn figures are available in the autumn before considering restoration of grant.
"Budgets of local authorities in England for this year—1981–82—indicate a volume of current expenditure about £800 million or 5·3 per cent. above the Government's target level at November 1980 prices. Local authorities have also made provision for higher pay and price increases than allowed for in the cash limits, and have thus budgeted for a cash excess of £1,250 million above the amount assumed for current expenditure in the rate support grant settlement. This is an inadequate response to the Government's request for lower public expenditure and protects the current consumption and staffing levels of local government at the expense of ratepayers whose ability to pay is already seriously diminished by the present recession.
"The traditional relationship between central and local government rests on the clear understanding that local government keeps within the overall financial policies of the central Government. The Government believe that this understanding must be upheld. I am therefore asking all local authorities to review their budgets for 1981–82 by the end of July in order to achieve levels of expenditure consistent with the Government's public expenditure plans.
"If the call for revised budgets does not produce a satisfactory response, I propose to ask the House in the autumn to approve a reduction in the total amount of grant available this year. I cannot be certain until I know the results of the revised budgets what would be an appropriate figure. But if the present spending plans remain unchanged the Government consider that £450 million would be the appropriate amount to withhold in grant. Authorities which achieve the Government's volume targets will not suffer from this reduction in grant. I also intend that those close to their volume targets will be partially exempted.
"I am placing in the Library detailed figures showing how this proposal would affect individual authorities. I shall be inviting detailed consultations about these proposals with local government. I must emphasise that it lies entirely in the hands of local government to revise its plans so as to achieve the necessary reduction of public expenditure and thus to avoid loss of grant.
"The House will want to know that over one-third of all local authorities, responsible for about 11 per cent. of local authority expenditure, have already budgeted within the Government's volume targets and thus will lose no grant from this reduction
1126
if they stick to their present plans. Over half of all local authorities, responsible for over one-third of local authority expenditure, would already be protected wholly or in part from holdback.
"The Government have not only to consider the consequences of excessive expenditure, but also the extent of the inequities in the way in which local revenue is raised through the rates. The Government therefore intend to issue a consultation document on the alternatives to domestic rates in the autumn. In the meantime we are considering further measures, including legislation next Session, which are needed to bring home to individual local authorities and their electorates the consequences of high-spending policies."
That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.
Following is the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in the House of Commons, referred to by the Lord Denham at the end of Question Time this afternoon:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on current expenditure by local authorities in Wales in 1981–82.
"My department has analysed the local authorities budget plans for 1981–82 and these show that in aggregate planned current expenditure will exceed the Government's target by about 2·2 per cent. or £21 million at November 1980 prices.
"Any current expenditure excess is a matter of serious concern and I have given very careful consideration to the need for corrective action. In doing so I have taken account first of the fact that in recent years budgets have in aggregate over-stated the actual volume of current expenditure by proportions not dissimilar from the present indicated excess and, secondly, the considered view of the Welsh local authority associations that the Government's current expenditure target will be met.
"In view of these considerations, and noting that in aggregate Welsh local authorities have clearly made efforts to meet the Government's current expenditure targets, I have decided not to call for revised budgets or to withhold grant at supplementary report stage this autumn.
"In adopting this course my determination to see that current expenditure is kept at the level allowed for in the RSG Settlement is in no way lessened; rather I am deferring judgment on the need to withhold grant. If despite the local authority associations' views there is an overspend this year, I will take action to reduce the total amount of grant available by the amount of that excess. In so doing I would protect authorities who have made an appropriate contribution to the necessary expenditure reductions.
"This decision reflects my trust that Welsh local authorities will meet our expenditure target. It is entirely up to them both individually and collectively whether I will need to withhold grant at a later stage.
"I have communicated this decision to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. I have also told them that I shall be consulting them in due course about the matters concerning the rating system to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred at the end of his statement this afternoon".
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made by his right honourable friend in another place. May I say that it does fill one with total alarm and despondency at what has been happening between local government and central Government in this country. First, I think it is fair to say that the concept of overspending in this generalised way is really an invention. What local government is not able to do is to comply with arbitrary

1127
targets. Local government's record in spending has been very good over the last six years, and 1980–81 was the first occasion of excessive expenditure. I was also struck by the Secretary of State's remark on page 2, in that, two months into the financial year, it seems ridiculous to punish authorities on the basis of what they are going to do when he does not yet know the final outturn figures for 1980–81.
Thirdly, the targets are quite unrealistic, and this has been shown since 65 per cent. of local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, have been unable to comply with them. Fourthly, to take away a grant which has already been promised and to do it retrospectively with decisions yet to be taken, seems to me to be really quite scandalous. It is like penalising somebody and not letting them know what the penalty is likely to be until they have done something for which they incur the penalty.
I would point out that it was shown clearly that the people who voted in the elections of 7th May overturned in many authorities Conservative rule for Labour rule. This meant that four out of the six shire authorities who are now Labour-controlled were in fact voting against Government policies and for increased expenditure. These are people who, all over the country, are suffering from the tears in our social fabric in social services, education and everything that local government does. It seems to me that this is really an extra nail, if you like, in the coffin of local government. It is becoming more and more the puppet of central Government.
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether the last paragraph, where the Secretary of State talks about introducing legislation even before the consultation takes place, means that the Government intend interfering with the traditional rights of local authorities to make any shortfall in the block grant right by levying a supplementary rate? That is to say, do they intend to claw back even further sums from the block grant or to limit local authorities in the way in which they can raise certain rates?
3.58 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, from these Benches we would like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend. We also welcome the intention expressed by the Government to introduce a consultation document in the autumn on alternatives to domestic rates. That is something for which my party has been looking for many years, and I hope that in the consultation document serious consideration will be given to capital and site value rating and indeed to the possible introduction of a local income tax.
From these Benches we have always taken the view that local government expenditure has, on the whole, kept better to the public expenditure limits than have other public agencies. It seems, time and again, that a special and unfair case is being made in respect of local government. Would the Minister not agree that on the inadequate figures he has produced—as he himself admits—on the whole, local government is keeping fairly well within the limits in view of continuing inflation and of wage settlements that are very often beyond the control of individual local authorities?
1128
May I ask the Minister to try to ensure that if he does insist on further cutbacks they must not affect the education, social and welfare services and measures to reduce unemployment entered into by hard-pressed local authorities, particularly of inner urban areas, and particularly in view of the fact that the rate support grant has been biased against inner urban authorities in the last dispensation?
Finally, would the Minister not agree that the 1981 county council elections indicated fairly clearly that the ratepayers were dissatisfied with the way Conservative local government was going? Would he therefore not agree that local councillors have been elected to carry out local policies and should be left to get on with them?
4 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, to deal with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, she was expressing—to quote her—alarm and despondency at what is happening to the central and local government relationship. I, too, have long been concerned about that, but it is certainly incumbent on local government now to be as responsible as it always was in the past, and to work within the framework set down by central Government. But we are seeing, possibly for the first time—certainly on the scale that is envisaged in the figures that I have given—central Government's policies being thwarted by local government, if local government is not willing to work within those overall parameters.
The noble Baroness said that local government's record is good. I entirely agree that, in the past, it has been good—certainly good in the sense that it has always come out very close to the original estimates—and would that central Government had always had as good a record in that respect. But what we are talking about is the position as it now is, and as the figures that we are talking about seem to indicate. If we are talking about alarm, then I should have thought one would have been very alarmed to see a potential overspend of the magnitude that I referred to a few moments ago, when I talked of £1,250 million. I should have thought that that was cause for much concern and for more than alarm.
No Government could idly sit by and simply accept that position and, at the same time, try to pursue the objective which this Government are doing, of reducing public spending. Policies of higher local spending are against the national interest, and against the long-term interests of those who work in the councils, because all they will lead to, in the end, is the closure of firms, losses of jobs and the out-migration of skilled and professional workers. There is evidence that that is so.
The noble Baroness went on to say that it is ridiculous to punish when the figures for 1980–81 are not known. What we are doing is not punishing at all. We are simply drawing attention to some information which is now available to us and which indicates that if nothing is done about it then we shall be in the situation that we foresee. I do not consider that it is one day too soon to be looking at that right away and asking: What is that we are doing today? We are asking local government to take this back and look again and see what they might do. In the time between

1129
now and the end of July, we shall certainly want to be talking and consulting with them to see what they feel able to do, what they feel unable to do and how far we can, if you like, help one another to get to where we must be at the end of the day. So that that certainly is consultation.
As regards the elections in May—and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made the same point—one would really have to look very carefully at some of the statistics surrounding those elections, in order to get a true flavour of the extent to which they gave a mandate. I would point out that of the total local authority current expenditure, 60 per cent. comes from Exchequer grant, 24 per cent. comes from non-domestic rates, which are paid for by industry and commerce which have no vote at all, with the balance of 16 per cent.—and, in some cases, the figure is much lower than that—coming from people who are domestic ratepayers and who vote. It may well be said that that is all right, but the fact is that if no one is going to look to protect all these other bodies of people, we shall be in grave difficulties.
Yes, my Lords, it is a mandate and local government has always had one, but always within the boundaries set down by central Government. That was a fundamental tenet. Indeed, it was the proud boast of those of us in local government that that was our tenet, and we often did things that we did not like at all, because central Government were laying them down. But the rule is that Governments have to govern in the longer term interests of the total domestic scene. We believed it then, and I believe now that local government will respond as it has done in the past.
To comment very quickly on the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I think that I covered his point about local government doing it better, if you like, than central Government; and, on the whole, they have kept within their limits. He asked whether we would ensure that any cuts did not affect education, social services and so on. We have never set out to say how individual authorities should run their affairs or what their priorities should be. Only they can decide that, as the circumstances vary, as both he and I know so well. That is a matter for local government. But I hope that, in looking, they will be looking not just at the services, but at the cost of their provision and at other opportunities that may exist.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many ratepayers, who have been shocked by the massive rate increases which have resulted from the increases in local government expenditure, will be very glad to see that the Government are now taking action in this matter? Is not the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that recent local government elections results show that the ratepayers do not mind this, vitiated by the fact that a very large number of local government electors are not ratepayers, and that the biggest ratepayers of all—the business ratepayers—have no vote?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from this Bench we should also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I wish that he had paid some tribute to the way in which councils have made really strenuous
1130
efforts to try to meet their spending targets and, at the same time, to maintain essential services for their electors. I am quite sure that this antagonistic approach towards local authorities is not the most effective way of getting them to reduce their expenditure.
The only part of the Statement that I can welcome is that part which refers to the fact that there is to be a consultative document issued to look at alternative systems in rating. Some of us have argued for a long time that we need to do something about it, or, if we are stuck with the present system, we need to have more regular revaluations. According to the Statement, this consultative document is to be issued in the autumn, but I ask the noble Lord: with whom will the Government consult, how long will be allowed for consultation and when can we expect the legislation to implement the decisions after that consultation has taken place?
We have had long arguments across the Table about grant related expenditure, grant related poundages, multipliers and so on, during the passage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Section 59 of that Act provides that the multipliers can be used only to increase an authority's grant or to limit the increase over the previous year, and Section 58 provides that where an authority's total expenditure is at, or below, its grant related assessment, then changes in block grant must be proportional to the changes in the expenditure. Will those two sections of the Act be very fairly complied with and will they also apply to any supplementary reports, in the same way as they do to the rate support grant report?
There is something like 5 or 6 per cent. overspending in the shire counties and, with one exception, before the elections all those were Conservative controlled. How is this to affect those authorities when Essex is overspent by £24·7 million, Kent by £19·1 million and my own county of Cambridgeshire by £13·9 million? Will the formula deal with those counties as well, or is it arranged so that it will catch only the Labour controlled authorities, which is what we were afraid of during the passage of the earlier Act?
Also, will the grant reduction, if it conies about, take account of the fact that 60 per cent. of the money comes from the Government and, therefore, it is only 60 per cent. of that overspending that is really the concern of the Government in the reduction of the grant? It is not the local authorities who are being penalised; it is their ratepayers who will be penalised by having to pay supplementary rates to provide the services which local people think are essential. Once again—I must say it—it is the people on the ground who know best what is wanted in their area, rather than the man sitting in Whitehall.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his very helpful remarks, and may I also take the opportunity to wish him many happy returns of the day. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who referred to an antagonistic approach, that this is anything but an antagonistic approach. If we are seriously concerned with a source which accounts for some 20 to 25 per cent. of all public spending—as we are and have to be—we must surely recognise that, in order to get to where we need to be, though not to where we necessarily

1131
want to be, we must go along together with local government. I, as much as anyone, would want that to be the approach. When I spoke of consultation that is what I had in mind. Yes, we shall consult. We do not consider that we are at all antagonistic. Conversely, I feel confident that those who are responsible for the leadership of local government will bear in mind what I said earlier, which I shall not repeat, about the responsibility which falls upon local government not to thwart the objectives of the national Government.
The noble Baroness asked: with whom would we consult? I readily tell her we shall consult with anybody who wishes to give an opinion and a view. We are saying that this has been "on the go" for so long that it cannot go on any longer, that we have to come to conclusions. There will be an opportunity for everybody to make a contribution, but we are not going to put it off beyond the time I have mentioned.
Turning to the noble Baroness's question as to whether these measures will affect only Labour-controlled authorities which are overspending, my answer to her is, certainly not. We are talking about everybody who is involved. If local government will give us what we need, there will be no need for any holdbacks. That would be the most desirable objective. It is what many of us want to see happen, and I hope we shall be pleasantly surprised by the response we receive.
As to ratepayers being penalised by supplementary rates, yes, that is one option. But if we reached that point, surely local government would be turning its back upon what the Government need to do. I am not so sure that local government will rush to do so, although there will be some authorities which will. On that point, I would refer the noble Baroness to the last part of the Statement.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, when they say that hitherto it has been possible to claim—I have often claimed—that local government has been more successful in keeping within the limits imposed upon it by the policy of central Government than have most central Government departments and agents of central Government? However, I disagree entirely with my noble friend if central Government go on to say, as I think they do, that matters can be left as they are by the Secretary of State for a moment longer. A budgeted overspend of 5 per cent. is far too great to be tolerated. If one-third of local government have already succeeded in keeping their budgets within the limits needed, I am confident that a very substantial number of other authorities will be able to do likewise once the challenge has been put to them, as it has been by this Statement. I would urge my noble friend, however, to rely for as long as possible upon the good sense and responsibility of local government to do what is required of it before taking any further steps which can be interpreted and misunderstood as an interference by central Government in the affairs of local government.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, to whom I gladly give the assurance that he called for in his last sentence.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, there can be two interpretations of a 5 per cent. overspend. One is that local authorities are spending to the extent of 5 per cent. more than they should. The other is that the basic grant-related element—that is, the basic expenditure which the central Government are laying down—is too low. Therefore, in their consultations with the local authorities will the Government bear that point in mind and see whether there can be a negotiated agreement? It seems to me (I am expressing an opinion) that what has happened is that central Government have laid down a level of expenditure which in fact is too low and which local authorities are finding it extremely difficult to meet. There is a meeting point which for the last two years or 18 months we have been talking about and which seems to me to be the problem: that central Government have laid down a level of expenditure, that that level of expenditure is very difficult for local authorities to meet and that central Government are insisting upon their level of expenditure being met and are using a particular weapon which in fact does not help. All it does is to cause the ratepayers to pay more.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has made a fair point. It is a question of what the level should be. I would only say to him that Governments have to decide what levels can be afforded in total. It is quite true that there are, and will always be, local situations where a good case can be made, but this does not in any way detract from the base of the argument which is: what can we afford? For very many years we have said, "We need this; therefore we must have it", but there comes a point where, as a Government, one has to say, "We cannot afford it". However, I take the noble Lord's point about the need to consult and I assure him that we intend to do so.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
4.17 p.m.
Report stage resumed, on Clause 2.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, leave out lines 9 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 which deals yet again with another power which the Secretary of State takes in respect of valuation and in respect of the power to exclude certain lands and heritages. One only has to read the words to see why I object to them. The words I propose to leave out include:
"(6D) The Secretary of State may by order under this subsection—
"(a) repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the valuation of lands and heritages and such valuation is affected by an order under sub-paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (3)(a), or under subsection (6A), above".
This is a very wide power to give to any Secretary of State. It gives him the power to amend any enactment, including this one which we are asked to hurry up with.

1133
That this enactment itself amends an Act which this House passed about nine months ago shows how speedily a change of heart and mind can take place on the part of this Government. To give to a Secretary of State the power to repeal or amend any enactment, and to do so not by new legislation but by just an order, is asking for far too much and to my mind smacks of tyranny. I could not help but hear about the discussions which the English have had on their trials and tribulations regarding local government. They talked about parameters which are agreed, accepted and laid down happily. Here is one of the parameters: the exercise of a power by a Secretary of State to do anything he likes in respect of amendment or repeal. I am sure that with his usual flexibility the Minister of State will justify this in terms of democracy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the new subsection (6D), which is what Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete (and Amendment No. 4 which is consequential to it, I dare say), is an enabling provision—nay, more than that—which will allow the Secretary of State by order to repeal or amend enactments relating to valuation where that valuation is affected by orders made under Clause 2 and also to apply, restrict or modify enactments relating to appeals.
The purpose of the provision is to allow a modest measure of flexibility in preparing for a partial revaluation to allow the adjustment of relevant Acts, by order, should this be found necessary. It would be difficult to say at this stage with complete assurance that every statutory reference to revaluation has been checked and found to be compatible with a partial revaluation as proposed by Clause 2; it would be unfortunate if some small impediment were found at a later date which held up the process, or if as an unforeseen consequence of a partial revaluation a ratepayer were inequitably treated. It is to help overcome such obstacles that we have sought the inclusion of subsection (6D) in the Bill.
Not only has the subsection no sinister implications but so far as its provenance is concerned—if that is the right word—it is remarkably similar to Section 6(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (as amended by Section 1 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978 enacted by the previous Administration) which relates to orders providing for the valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages occupied by public undertakings. The effect of that provision is to empower the Secretary of State to repeal or amend any enactment in so far as it relates to valuation and rating matters in respect of lands and heritages valued by formula.
I should point out that an order under this new subsection 6(D), which is in any case strictly limited in its application, would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament, which, I suggest, would allow adequate scrutiny of any repeals or amendments which prove to be necessary.
On that basis, I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will see that the subsection perhaps does not have the somewhat sweeping powers which he alleged when he moved the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, like it or not, the sweeping powers are there. They remain. It may be that the intention of the Government is not to use them in a sweeping way—that I can understand—but, unfortunately, these words are there and nothing could be more sweeping than,
"repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act)".
The Minister pleads in aid that this same thing was done in relation to the method of valuation for certain public undertakings. I shall not go into that now, but the change of formula by order is a very different thing from amending legislation. If the formula is actually in legislation then one is quite wise and right to do it. I do not know that there is anyone in this House who could get up at this moment and tell me how the valuation process works in relation to, say, the Hydro-Electricity Board or British Rail and the other public undertakings. That was certainly one formula that I always reckoned only one Member of Parliament could understand; that was Tom Steele, and he is dead now. So we have a considerable loss in respect of what our civil servants in the Scottish Office think is an adequate formula in relation to the valuation of these particular public undertakings.
I do not think it is good enough, but the real answer came from the Minister. There might, in this Bill, be a change being made, and we have not had time to go through all the other pieces of legislation to put it right, or, in other words, to amend now as one usually does in a schedule, listing a whole series of changes which have to be made in consequence of what one is now doing. That is the real reason. So not only are the Government being tyrannical, they are being negligent and they are covering their negligence by saying "That is all right. If we discover that there is something we have missed, we will pass an order"—and more parliamentary time goes by the board. That is what it means and, if the Minister of State is prepared to accept that and to claim to the world that that is what they are doing, who am I to stop them?
I have no intention of taking this amendment to a Division, but I should like people in Scotland to know just what kind of Government they have and indeed what kind of House of Lords—one which is prepared to accept this kind of thing. We say that we perform a useful function here because we catch up on the mistakes of another place. We shall be agreeing to the mistakes of another place if we allow this to go through and allow a negligent Government to cover their negligence by a sweeping power which goes far beyond negligence. Irrespective of what their aim is or what they say their virtuous purpose is, it gives the Secretary of State the power to repeal or amend any enactment, and that is far too wide a power to give to anyone. However I am prepared not to press the amendment, having declared what I consider to be the true weakness of this particular subsection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("or under subsection (6D), above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is connected with the previous amendment, so I do not propose to move it.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Information to be furnished by assessors
. In section 12 of the 1956 Act (Information to be furnished by parties to appeal or complaint) such information as it is the duty of the assessor to furnish in sub-paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) shall be made available timeously on written respect to a ratepayer who is considering appeal or complaint.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the information that is furnished by assessors in respect of a person who, like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is worried about his rates and his valuation—very often he has not got available readily to hand the information he requires on which to base his appeal or his complaint. At the moment only when he actually appeals or complains is he entitled to get information from the assessor.
This amendment is a fairly simple one. It is to enable the person who is considering an appeal or a complaint to get from the assessor the information on which he can make up his mind whether it is worth while to appeal. It may well be that the assessor will say, "We are dealing with you on the same basis as we have dealt with so and so" That may well be satisfactory.
However, at the moment all the cards are on the side of the assessor. He lays down the figure on which he bases the assessment; he gives no information about it and he is not required by law to do so. It is a purely subjective judgment, but when you are appealing, when you are actually entering your appeal, you have to tell him the basis of your appeal and it is only later that you have that information from him that I suggest should be given to the would-be appellant or possible complainant. It is a simple and fair amendment and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the objectives and motivation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, underlying his proposed new clause. Valuation is a complex subject, and I accept entirely that the ratepayer who decides to take issue with his local assessor about the values which have been fixed has a difficult task in front of him if he is to pursue his appeal or complaint effectively. This applies particularly to the domestic ratepayer, who is unlikely to have the professional services of a rating surveyor or a lawyer.
However, I cannot agree to the addition of this new clause. First, it is technically imperfect because Section 12 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, to which the clause refers, has been repealed, and provision for the exchange of information between ratepayer and assessor is now contained in Regulation 6 of the Appeals and Valuation Appeal Committee Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 1978, so that if one did want to achieve what the noble Lord is setting out to achieve, one would not need to indulge in primary legislation; all that would be required would be to amend the 1978 regulations.
Taking the clause on its merits, Regulation 6 of the
1136
1978 appeal regulations requires the appellant ratepayer to provide the assessor with a statement of his grounds of appeal, and the assessor must then respond with a note of the basis of his valuation. Provision is also made for the exchange of lists of comparable properties at the instance of either party. The clause seeks to extend this principle by requiring the assessor to provide information to a ratepayer who is considering whether to lodge an appeal or complaint. I doubt whether this extension would have the intended beneficial effect for the ratepayer. A ratepayer will not appear before a local valuation appeal committee until he has discussed his case with the assessor, and during the course of these discussions both parties will learn a great deal about each others arguments. It may be argued that there is no harm in seeking to formalise an existing informal practice, but I am sure that formal written statements given to the ratepayer by the assessor would, if they were going to be really helpful, have to be supplemented by informal discussions of the sort which already take place. In short, then, the ratepayer would be no better off than he is at present, and assessors departments would have an additional and burdensome, yet unnecessary, task imposed on them. This would be particularly undesirable after a revaluation when inevitably they are under great pressure.
I should like to make clear that these informal discussion can and do take place before a ratepayer has formally lodged an appeal or complaint. There is no prescribed way of appealing. Though some may lodge an appeal as a first step and then withdraw it after discussion, or, as the case may be, pursue it before an appeal committee, others may start with an informal inquiry of the assessor and then lodge a formal appeal only if they do not receive a satisfactory answer.
As I have said, I have sympathy with the objectives of the new clause, and I would like to be positive in the matter. The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council has already started a review of the 1978 revaluation and this review also covers the associated appeal arrangements. So I will ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to put to the council the points raised by the noble Lord and they can be considered as part of this review, and any recommendations which the council makes will, of course, be given the most careful consideration. I hope, for all these reasons, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am no lawyer, but when the Minister of State suggests that this is all very well, quite unnecessary, that it is all covered by regulations, and all we need to do is change the regulations, all I can suggest to him is that he reads Section 12:
"Where an appeal or complaint is taken to a valuation appeal committee"
the regulations are hinged on that—
"it shall be the duty of the assessor if written request is made to him by the appellant or complainant at the time of lodging such appeal or complaint …".
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I tried to say to the noble Lord that that has now been repealed.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The section has been repealed?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I will certainly have a look at it before we come to the next stage of the Bill. I know what I am talking about in relation to this question of the informal discussions. I had two informal discussions, with two separate people who came to me, who were anxious that I should not proceed with an appeal. The noble Lord probably knows—or the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council will know—that they were probably deluged by appeals from the part of the town I lived in because of what was considered very considerable unfairness in terms of valuation. I am still to be supplied with a list of relevant properties on which the valuation was based.
As it works at the moment, all the power is in the hands of, and all the balance is for, the assessor. It is not every occupier, ratepayer, who has the time, the knowledge or anything else to go chasing round all the valuation rolls seeking out all the properties he would like to cite as favouring his particular appeal. Certainly by the time I deal with Scottish legislation in this place, I have very little time left, and I have not got the Scottish Office behind me to do all the work for me; I can assure the Minister that there are many people who would like to appeal. The information they have to supply, rather than the information they receive, is inimical to them. I am very glad, however, that the noble Earl is prepared to refer this aspect of it to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council. On the understanding that that will be done and eventually we will get a report on this particular point, I am very happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Reduction of rate support grant where local authority's estimated expenditure excessive and unreasonable]:
4.40 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) in paragraph (a) for the word "or" where it last occurs, there shall be substituted the word "and".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, now we come to the really important parts of the Bill. This amendment relates to Clause 14. We come to something that may have a familiar ring to English ears who listened through the statement that was made, because here, in Clause 14, we have the Government's proposals in relation to dealing with what they consider excessive and unreasonable expenditure in Scotland.
It was always cited that of course this power was always there, readily there; it was in Clause 8 of the 1966 Act, and this had been brought forward from times past to give the power to the Secretary of State to reduce rate support grant in case of default. There were two justifications for it. The main concern originally in respect of this default was that a local authority that was bound by statute to provide services was not providing reasonable services. Some of them were not providing the services at all, but they were rating for those services that were unprovided, and to that extent their rates were unreasonable and excessive. So the power was continued in the 1966 Act to allow the Secretary of State to deal with this question of
1138
"regard being had to the standards maintained by other authorities and boards … that the expenditure of any local authority … had been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area … concerned.".
To remove any doubt, my first amendment—I think we could probably deal with that one as one of the main aspects of this particular clause: the other two, Nos. 7 and 8, are not linked with this at all—is to link the two things together. When one is considering whether rates are unreasonable and excessive one must take into account whether the standards of service provided are unreasonable and excessive.
At this point I should like to pass on an apology from the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that he is not here today to battle away for Scottish local authorities. I think that he is the one noble Lord in this House who has experience of over six years of regional government, and this particular clause absolutely incenses him. However, he hopes to be here on Third Reading and to have an opportunity of saying, with even more emphasis than he has hitherto, what he feels about this matter.
I think that I have probably more experience of rate support grant than any other Member in this House—certainly in Scotland. I conducted meetings with the local authorities as regards this matter for eight years. Prior to that I was familiar with the Exchequer equalisation grant, and prior to that I was familiar with what I think was called the "general grant". For 33 years I have seen the whole thing develop. There once was a lovely time in Scotland when all one did was divide by 80 and multiply by 11. It was called the "Goschen formula". Whatever the expenditure on education was in England, Scotland received 11/80ths. As Scotland was much more enlightened as regards education long, long before England and took in the Roman Catholic schools and the Church of England schools and made them virtually local authority schools—that was 60 years ago—the pressures of events in relation to fairness to these schools in England and Wales meant that sooner or later, if we stuck to the 11/80ths, Scotland's flow-back from the increased expenditure in England would be considerably to Scotland's advantage. That, I am afraid, was wiped out by a Conservative Government, of course, at a time when it was becoming extremely suitable for Scotland.
However, what was said by a noble Lord during the discussions on the English rate support grant is correct. When it comes to the rate support grant one sits down with the local authorities and determines what is all the reckonable local government expenditure. It is not always agreed and has not been agreed in the past two years, but the Government decide that that is the sum. Then there is another chain, another decision to be made by the Government; namely, the extent to which they will support the rate support grant. In Scotland this year I think that it is between 64 per cent. and 65 per cent.
The Government have now warned the local authorities that no matter what happens they will only meet additional expenditure in relation to inflation of, I think, 11 per cent.—I think that that is written in—and 6 per cent. for wages, and the local authorities must meet the rest. There will be no change beyond that. What have this same Government agreed with

1139
the teachers?—over 7 per cent. What have they agreed with the police?—over 7 per cent. What have they agreed with the local authority workers?—over 7 per cent. How will it be met? It can only be met out of rates. This is not a failure of local government. This is why reckonable expenditure, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says in respect of England anyway, is unrealistic. It is not facing the facts.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the figures properly quoted in relation certainly to Scotland. As regards local government and central Government expenditure for 1975–76 as compared with 1981–82 at 1976 prices, the current expenditure of local government, taking 100 as the base figure, is now 97·1 in Scotland—that is a reduction. Central Government's expenditure has increased from 100 to 114. Local government have reduced their expenditure: central Government have increased their expenditure. The same is true of capital expenditure. Therefore, the record of local government is far, far better than that of central Government which themselves set the task. It is not local government, but central Government, which is out of control. It is quite wrong to come here and give the impression that somehow or other local authorities, be they in Scotland or England, have been failing the nation.
I remember what the Minister said on Second Reading. Indeed, this point strikes the noble Earl, Lord Minto, very sorely and he has given me the advantage of his notes in respect of this matter. The Minister of State on Second Reading—and he implied it again in Committee—said that as regards local government it was relevant to take the changes in expenditure from, I think it was, 1971–72 as compared with 1975–76. But he did not tell us what happened between 1971 and 1975. I remember being at a Scottish Labour Party Conference and being informed by telephone that the Government had decided to raise the school leaving age. I think that it was early 1970. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, will remember that decision—it was before the election, of course. But what were the implications for expenditure? The expenditure implications as regards local authorities were very much increased expenditure in relation to schools, secondary schools, further education as well as teachers. Now we have a Government of the same complexion coming along and telling us that they should not have spent that money and using it in an unfair comparison.
I was the Secretary of State who introduced the Social Work Act in relation to Scotland. It was, and is still, much more comprehensive than the Act in England and Wales, because we took over the aftercare service in relation to people leaving prison and supervisory services of that nature. That took place in late 1967. It took a year or two to go ahead. But by 1971 completely new expenditure was building up. We must remember that the periods that were quoted by the Minister of State were times when there was a Tory Government, when there was a great increase in local government expenditure—for example, health and personal social services; environmental services such as swimming pools. I can remember every Tory Member in the House of Commons demanding more. So it is pretty unfair to make comparisons with that
1140
situation—to meet the obligation of Acts passed by this House—and for the Government to come along now and say that that was then things got out of control. It is absolute nonsense.
Local government has been bearing a disproportionate share of the cuts that the Government deem necessary. It is unfair when the Government are increasing expenditure as they are, to blame local authorities, when all that they are doing is trying—many of them at a minimal stage now—to meet the obligations placed upon them. After local government reform the subsidies to transport in the rural areas, which county councils never had to bear, fell upon the new regional authorities. The subsidies for rural transport, at the demands of this House, are now used against local authorities as being unreasonable expenditure. Beyond the point of fixing reckonable expenditure, the Government decide what proportion of that expenditure they will bear. Having fixed an unreasonably low level, in the past two years they have been reducing the proportion paid by them. So it is easy to understand why our rates have gone up. If we ignore the services and look only at the rates, and talk only about one authority as compared with another instead of how the authorities have managed this without looking at how the Government have done, that would give a very unfair picture altogether.
I have plenty of examples of how people have desperately tried to meet guidelines. The rates in Strathclyde have increased by about 37½ per cent.—28p in the pound. If they had met the guidelines that the Government laid down, instead of going up by 37½ per cent. they would have gone up by 30 per cent. That is the Government's acceptance of reasonable expenditure, but not a reasonable rates rise. So the Government take action such as this to compel any local authority to rethink the matter, denying the authority the right to determine its own expenditure, but telling it that it must think again and that if it does not, they will take away part of its rate support grant.
The Government have not mentioned one authority yet. I do not know what authorities they mean. Do they mean the Borders or the Highlands and Islands? Of the 65 Scottish local authorities, 59 are above these guidelines. Seven regions, one Highlands and Islands authority and 10 district authorities exceeded the guidelines by up to 10 per cent.; between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. 12 district authorities exceeded them; and one region, two islands authorities, and 26 district authorities—29 in all—were over 20 per cent. above the guidelines. Against which local authorities will the Government take action? I think that we are entitled to know. Will they ensure that the services provided are adequate and reasonable, or will they concentrate purely and simply on the question of the actual rate burden?
The Government can determine the rate burden, fix a low reckonable expenditure and fix a low percentage to be met by the authorities, and it must be met by the rates. Now they say that the rates must come down or they will reduce the rate support grant. The authority may say that it is an independent authority, that these are the services which it thinks are right and that it will meet the deficit by borrowing. But the Government say that it cannot borrow.
We have reached the point where there will virtually be no independent local government in Scotland. Those are not my words. The Scotsman, Scotland's national newspaper, in an article published on 27th May 1981, said:
"… Mr. George Younger will have the power to undermine the independence of local councils, making them mere puppets dancing to his instructions. No other conclusion can be drawn from the provision in the Bill which will allow him to cut the rate support grant to those councils, the estimated expenditure of which he considers to be 'excessive and unreasonable'. The bill also prevents an offending authority from borrowing to make good"
the shortfall, as they have the entitlement at the present time. I am trying hard to save the Government from an abyss into which they are racing headlong. I do not know what kind of Statement we shall have which will be equivalent to the English one that we have had today. What more can we do for Scottish local authorities?—or has someone had a brainwave?
By accepting this amendment and inserting an "and" instead of an "or", and linking the actual reasonable standard of services with the actual rates burden, we might get a different attitude from the Government. But I believe that it may well be too late even for that; that they cannot withdraw from the abyss.
During the past week I have done some reading and have read the White Paper entitled Reform of Local Government, February 1971. It says:
"The Government intend to seize the opportunity of reorganisation to secure for local government a new and improved status … If local authorities are to exercise more independent control over local affairs their relationship with central government must be recast. This involves a fresh look at the financing of local government".
That was a Tory White Paper. What is the result of their fresh look? They are hammering local authorities into the ground. I do not know what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, thinks about this; I hope that we shall have one of his inimitable speeches. He had better be careful or I shall quote him the exact position in the Highlands. When we deal with all this we must take the kind of authorities that are faced with this situation and which cannot meet the guidelines. I hope that the Government will think again. This is the first of many amendments that I shall move in relation to this matter. I hope to hear some noble Lords on the Conservative side saying a few words about it.
During the Committee stage from the Conservative side of the House there was not one amendment—I do not know whether there were any more than two speeches, although we had a very outspoken speech from one noble Lord who is not present so I shall not mention his name today, but at least he had the courage to get up and state what he thought—to this Bill, which opens up the whole field of local government, and I am asked to take this place seriously! There was lack of interest. In relation to this I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, who had tabled some Questions complaining about local government; he could have dealt with that in this Bill by tabling dozens of amendments and new clauses on any subject with which local authorities deal. That is the scope of this Bill.
The Government desperately want this Bill; they have even fixed the Third Reading for next week—the provisional date given to me was 9th June. But,
1142
of course, the Minister of State has let down everyone in the Scottish office. He could stand up to the political lobby, but he could not stand up to the disabled lobby and he is accepting amendments, so the Bill has to go back to another place, and the Government's timetable is seriously discommoded.
The Scotsman suggested that this was a questionable Bill. There is no question about the clause that I seek to amend. It is one of the worst clauses that I have ever seen. I sincerely hope that even at the last minute the Government will change their mind and pull away from this disaster of confrontation. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to me, I should just like to state that in the last three years—I am in Strathclyde, in the Isle of Mull—
Lord Ross of Marnock: You are very lucky.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am very unlucky, because our rates have increased three times and we have no extra service except garbage collection. But nobody wants garbage collection because we have always disposed of our own garbage. There appears to be no excuse for this exorbitant rise. Of course the reason is that it goes towards supporting council housing in Glasgow. It is my misfortune to be geographically in a Highland area—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me? The one thing the region does not do, has no control over, pays nothing at all towards, is housing. That is a district function.
Viscount Masseereene and Ferrard: My Lords, that may be so, but at any rate the point is that the rates have gone up, so far as f am concerned, three times. True enough they have doubled the staff in Tobermory, but that could not account for all the rise in rates. I am personally behind the Government in this Bill.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think that one matter on which there is agreement is that this is probably the clause which is at the heart of this part of the Bill and is of the utmost importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, knows only too well, the major aim of the Bill's provisions, and in particular this clause, and those provisions which the noble Lord's amendment would vitiate—and I notice he had very little to say about his amendment in 21 minutes of earnest endeavour—is to give the Secretary of State power to act effectively against overspending by an individual local authority.
"What local authorities will be proceeded against?" asked the noble Lord. "We are entitled to know", I wrote down. Of course this was a question which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, addressed to me, in effect, at an earlier stage of the Bill. I think that this would be the correct time in your Lordships' deliberations to respond. What I said on the last occasion—and at any rate in my submission I was right in saying it—was that it would not be proper if the Secretary of

1143
State were to act as if the Bill had already been passed, but certain preliminary administrative steps are necessary which will in no way presume passage of the Bill.
My right honourable friend thinks it highly desirable, as a matter of sound financial administration, that authorities who might suffer grant reduction should be made aware as far in advance as possible of that contingency, and of the basis upon which he had reached a preliminary view that their estimated expenses were excessive and unreasonable. Accordingly, therefore, my right honourable friend proposes soon to issue preliminary notice to certain local authorities in Scotland that the expenditure which they are planning to incur in 1981–82 appears to him to be excessive and unreasonable within the terms specified in the Bill which we are now discussing, and he will also inform them of his reasons for coming to that view. The cases would concern the most serious and urgent instances of expenditure which, prima facie, appear to the Secretary of State to be excessive and unreasonable. Such preliminary notice and the response to it would also assist my right honourable friend to establish as soon as possible the scale of any grant reductions which he may require to make, and in particular to ensure that any over-payment of grant to any authority with the need for subsequent clawback is avoided.
The procedure to be followed subsequently involves the laying of a report by the Secretary of State which specifies the amount of, and reasons for, the proposed reduction and sets out the local authorities' representations, and the resolution of another place, including the report, is required before any reduction in grant can be made. This is of course without prejudice to his formal reconsideration of the circumstances of each case if the powers are in fact granted to him. It should be appreciated by other authorities, whose planned expenditure does not appear to be at this stage of such a magnitude as would warrant preliminary notice, that the Secretary of State may subsequently decide that he is obliged to exercise his powers in their cases in respect of the current financial year.
It is in those terms that we have to consider the nature of the noble Lord's amendment. Under the 1966 Act the powers presently available to the Secretary of State allow him, with the approval of the House of Commons, to reduce grant only after an excessive and unreasonable expenditure has been incurred. The retrospective nature of the existing power means that the authority concerned has no opportunity to reduce expenditure, and any action which the Secretary of State might take under his existing powers would follow the fact of overspending and could only be punitive in nature.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment, as I suspect he very well knows, would make a nonsense of the provisions in the Bill—and I see him nodding—because it would have the effect that the power to act on planned expenditure could only be exercised, together with the power to act on actual expenditure, in terms of the existing provision in the 1966 Act. Therefore, the proposals in the Bill are, as I have tried to illustrate, considerably different in their application and effect, if not in principle, from the existing powers, and to be effective the power requires to be available to the Secretary of State without its use being con-
1144
ditional on the availability of the existing power in the 1966 Act.
I am not going into a clause stand part debate although, and I do not say this in a sense of too much criticism, I thought that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was arguing. He, among other things, complained that the level of expenditure fixed for local authorities was too low. I say to him that the level of expenditure relevant for rate support grant taken into account for 1981–82 is more in real terms than actual expenditure in 1977–78, so that the expenditure targets are in no sense of the word unrealistic so far as 1981–82 is concerned.
Our proposals and our policy on public expenditure, which have been exemplified by a lot of Bills coming before this House, are vital to the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. These proposals in this Bill are an important part of the means of bringing that policy to fruition. So at the risk of raising the noble Lord's ire, and I think of an occasion last summer when I described one of his amendments as being wrecking in nature, I have to repeat that allegation today and advise the House that the Government cannot accept it. I hope that to save time, if nothing else, the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, having listened to this argument and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, freely admit that the amendment is solely designed to wreck, I feel it would be difficult for me to follow him in this particular amendment. I dislike Clause 14 and I do not really like the Bill at all so far as it goes, but having got this far to this stage of discussion and examination, I am not sure that it is our duty to wreck the Bill completely. These are, after all, provisions which would wreck not only this Bill but would be critical of a Bill which was indeed passed by a previous Government for the control of local authority behaviour and expenditure, and so forth. I feel it would be difficult in this particular amendment to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, much as I dislike the principle embodied in Clause 14.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I suppose the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, can take a modicum of comfort from that qualified degree of support from the Liberal Benches. I am sorry that I cannot follow the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, along that line. Indeed, I did not intend to take part in this discussion until the Minister referred to what I had said about the clause at a previous stage.
We must remember that the greatest part of expenditure carried out by local authorities is in pursuance of duties and obligations laid on them by successive governments. Governments tell local authorities, "You must provide such and such a service" or "You must undertake such and such a duty", and successive governments of both parties, Labour and Conservative, as my noble friend Lord Ross pointed out, have placed such responsibilities on local authorities. If the present Government consider that in carrying out those responsibilities a local authority is spending too much money, they should say in what way they are overspending, because they cannot say they are undertaking services for which they have no legal right or obligation placed on them.

1145
If, therefore, in the carrying out of those responsibilities—as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said at the last stage and my noble friend Lord Ross repeated today—59 out of 65 local authorities are unable to comply with the Government's guidelines, then we are reminded of the well-known Scottish saying, "They are all out of step except our Jock". It would appear that the Government are wrong in their guidelines because a majority of the 59 local authorities which are not complying with them are not Labour authorities; they include Labour authorities but they also include Independents and Conservatives, and they have been unable to comply.
When referring to what might be done, the Minister said action might be taken against certain authorities, and of course he did not specify which they might be. He might have been more helpful—I can understand him at this stage not wanting to name particular authorities—by indicating whether action is to be taken against all those authorities which are failing to keep within the Government's guidelines. Are all 59 at risk, or such number of the 59 as are unable to bring themselves within the guidelines? Or are we to understand that there will be a point at which failure to abide by the guidelines will be forgiven on the one hand and punished on the other?
It will be interesting in due course to discover at what point an inability to comply with the Government's guidelines will be regarded as a sin which will not be forgiven, or as a minor transgression which will be allowed to pass. It is obvious that if, at the end of the day, the great majority of Scottish local authorities are unable to comply with the guidelines, the Government will be unable to exercise the powers in such a way as to punish all of them. The conclusion which, I believe, will be drawn by local authorities is that it is the guidelines which are wrong.
If, therefore, the Government wish to reduce the expenditure which local authorities can properly undertake, they should be withdrawing the duties and telling local authorities, "You should not be doing such and such a thing and therefore we shall alter the law. We will withdraw your responsibilities for social work, education" or whatever the case may be; but the Government cannot leave those responsibilities as they are at present and then punish local authorities for carrying them out. It seems from the way the Government are acting that local government in Scotland is on a hiding to nothing.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I am certain that nothing I am likely to say on this matter will bring comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I find myself broadly in agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said about Clause 14. I do so particularly in the context of the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, a measure promoted by a Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and myself, for our sins or otherwise according to the view one takes of the matter, were members. Section 5, and in particular Section 5(2), empowers the Secretary of State to take action by making regulations for prescribing standards and general requirements in relation to any function of a local authority in Scotland. That colours my
1146
judgment in trying to assess the force of the arguments that have been presented against Clause 14 which, like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I do not much like. However, I do not feel that we, who were responsible for the provisions of Section 5 of the 1966 Act, can direct very serious argument against it.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The 1966 Act, I think we will discover, was a consolidation measure, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who until recently I called "my noble friend", will find that the power to which he referred has been in existence for a very long time, and certainly was there prior to the Labour Government of which he spoke. I can also tell him that that power was never used because local authorities pretty well accepted the role and spirit of the understandings that existed between central and local government. That has been true until this very time, and the more this Government have been shouting for the past couple of years about how they were going to do something about it, the more they made confrontation with some authorities absolutely inevitable.
Be that as it may, we return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hughes, namely that there are 65 local authorities and that the guidelines laid down by the Government are such that 59 of them—including Conservative, Independent (a lot of local government in Scotland is Independent) as well as Labour authorities—have not been able to meet them. I cannot understand those who try to ride away on the argument that while they do not like Clause 14, they are not prepared to vote against it. I would remind them that there is a Bill without Clause 14; there is a measure in relation to valuation, to getting rid of certain quangos and there are references to housing. We are dealing with only one clause of Part II of the Bill. But, having tasted the water and found it was unpleasant, they are not prepared to throw it out; they are going to drink it, and that surprises me. Well, I am disappointed—I am not surprised—at the reactions of the Liberal Party and the other party which sits up there: the Shirley/David playgroup. I had hoped that there would be something better than that from them in relation to their opposition to what to my mind is to be a very dangerous measure.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount who seemed to think that Strathclyde dealt with housing has left the Chamber. Housing is one of the things with which it does not deal, but evidently the noble Viscount did not appreciate even that the rate support grant does not include anything about housing, unless it is something in relation to interest rates. It is on this basis of ignorance that we are passing legislation and supporting a Government who themselves admit their own negligence. I am sorry about this from the point of view of Scotland and the good government of Scotland. There is no doubt that this particular clause is the heart of the matter.
I do not disagree with the wide sweep that the Minister of State took. Bearing in mind that this is the Report stage and that I am on my feet only once, apart from replying, I thought that I had better make the best of it and the most of it. I am sorry that we are approaching six o'clock and that some Scottish

1147
parliamentarians will not be on Horse Guards to see Beating Retreat.
The Minister told us about the report, the information from the local authorities, the response, the including of that within a report, and it coming to Parliament. All of that is in the Bill and has nothing to do with this particular amendment. I do not disagree with him there. But what we wanted to know—we shall be asking the question again—is which of the 59 local authorities are to be dealt with, even from a preliminary point of view. He now tells us that the Government have made up their mind about it. Which authorities are to be taken to task? I am perfectly sure that we shall get no more information on that from the Minister.
I regard this as being probably the most important part of the Bill from a local authority point of view. I tried, quite rightly, to change the principle of it and to get back more towards the 1966 Act. It was not intended to take away all the powers from the Government—far from it. They still have power. We are concerned about the retrospective powers that they are taking here and are applying to 1981–82—a period which has already started. We shall come later to the question of the actual timing, how long it is all going to take, and the extent to which your Lordships are to agree to give retrospective power to a Government. I shall not withdraw the amendment, but rather I shall proceed to a Division, and I shall do so fairly quickly—
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, may I ask him on what basis he asserts that the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 was a consolidation statute? If in fact it was, what relevance does that have?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the point was that it was bringing forward into a Bill powers that were already there. There is a Joint Committee—I was once a member of it—of this House and the other House appointed to deal with consolidation, and the one thing that one cannot do with consolidation is to amend. It might well be that our names were connected with it because we happened to be there at the time, and to that extent we are culpable. But the Government had a consolidation measure last year, and now they are amending a part of that statute in this Bill. One could not do that in a consolidation Bill; one can do it only through new legislation. That was my interpretation of the situation. It might well be that as a whole it was not a consolidation Bill, but the matter that we are now considering was certainly included. The Government have admitted that the power in the 1966 Act has been there since the 1940s. Your Lordships can take it from me that it was there before 1945.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Brockway, L.

Blease, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blyton, L.

Collison, L.

1148

David, B. [Teller.]

Maelor, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gosford, E.

Segal, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Leatherland, L.

Whaddon, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

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

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kilmany, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kimberley, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Avon, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Berkeley, B.

Lawrence, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blake, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bradford, E.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Margadale, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Newall, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Perth, E.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Exeter, M.

Renwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Foley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Garner, L.

Savile, L.

Gisborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Spens, L.

Gridley, L.

Stamp, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tollemache, L.

Ilchester, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kemsley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("(iv) after the words "local or" there shall be inserted the words "as the case may be"; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think anyone will be able to understand this amendment unless they have with them a copy of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, because so much of this Bill is legislation by reference and is sheer gobbledegook. But in the interests of uniform drafting I thought we had better make this particular amendment:
"after the words 'local or' there shall be inserted the words 'as the case may be'; and"
I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord has the apparently admirable purpose of improving the drafting, not only of the Bill but of the 1966 Act. But the effect of the amendment would be to add unnecessary words to existing statute. The existing reference in statute which the amendment would modify is:
"to the local or constituent authority [of a joint board] in question".
The amendment would make the reference read:
"to the local or as the case may be constituent authority in question".
So the amendment, for all its admirable intention, would not I think in fact improve the clarity of the existing statute, and it is on that basis that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, nothing that I would insert in relation to drafting could make the Bill any worse than it is at the present time, particularly in relation to the amendments which are proposed to this clause. But far be it from me to cause any more troubled half-hours to draftsmen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("(v) after the words "opportunity of" there shall be inserted the words "and reasonable time for"; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, too, is a fairly simple amendment, and I hope it will meet the desire of the Government to be helpful to local authorities. Under the original Act the Government, who are concerned about excessive or unreasonable expenditure, afford to the local or constituent authority in question (having missed out my words "as the case may be") an opportunity to make representations. What I am suggesting is that not only should we give them an opportunity to make representations but that we should give them a reasonable time in which to do it. That is the effect of the amendment: to ensure that where by statute they already have to afford an opportunity to the local authority to make representations, they give them a reasonable time in which to make those representations.
Your Lordships should remember that in a later part of this Bill, when the Government want information from the local authorities, they use, I thought quite
1150
gratuitously, the word "timeously". I thought of perhaps inserting a word like that, but then I thought, "Let us say what we mean, and that is to give them a reasonable time to make their representations". That is the purpose of the amendment. There is nothing wrecking about it, so the noble Viscount can rest assured that on this occasion he will be quite safe in voting for this. It is a reasonable amendment to give local authorities a reasonable amount of time to make their representations on something as serious as this—the possibility of loss of a considerable part of their rate support grant. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am all for statute being clear and understandable to the reader, and equally that it should convey quite clearly to the Executive what the intentions of Parliament were in placing the provision on the statute book. But I have to say to the noble Lord that his proposed words would in fact have the effect of adding unnecessary surplusage to existing statute.
If we go back to Section 5(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 as it stands, we find that the Secretary of State is under an obligation to afford to a local authority or to a constituent authority of the joint board an opportunity of making representations before he proceeds to take steps to seek approval of the House of Commons to a proposed reduction in rate support grant. The words "opportunity of making representation" in the existing statute imply that a reasonable time must be allowed by the Secretary of State for representations to be made, the word "opportunity" embracing not only a reasonable time factor but also other reasonable factors which may be relevant to the making of representations in a particular case. I can assure the House that if and when the Bill is enacted and the procedures relevant to exercising the proposed powers to reduce grant by reference to planned expenditure are available, the authority concerned will have sufficient opportunity to put their case, in effect before the House of Commons, in the form of representation provided by the 1966 Act as it stands already.
The preliminary notices to which I made reference when speaking to Amendment No. 6 will, I suggest, assist in this matter; they will give full details of the case which the local authority will have to answer in their representations, and so far as this year is concerned it would extend the period which would otherwise be available for making them. In these circumstances the words in the amendment would neither tighten up the obligations imposed upon the Secretary of State by statute nor would they make the statute any clearer or more understandable. In those circumstances, I cannot recommend this amendment to the House for acceptance.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am quite certain that my noble friend will feel that tabling this amendment has been justified because it has extracted from the noble Lord the Minister the statement he has just made. One knows that any assurance given by the Minister will not form part of the Act and that if it came to a court decision the courts would not take any account of what the Minister said but only of what was in the Act. In this context, however, I believe that local

1151
authorities will note that the Minister has made clear that, so far as the Government are concerned, they intend that giving an opportunity carries with it a reasonable time in which to take advantage of that opportunity. From that point of view, what my noble friend has done was justified, and in extracting that statement from the noble Lord, the Minister, I believe that it will prove to have been worth while.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said, it is true the word is not in the Bill, and to that extent I prefer words which are actually in the statute rather than words which are only implied. The Act only makes reference to "an opportunity of making representations". The noble Lord went on to say that local authorities would be able to make a report before the House of Commons, but it is not the local authorities who report to the House of Commons; it is the Government who do that. The Government are commanded by statute because the 1966 Act states:
"and setting any representation made by the authority with respect to the proposed reduction …".
It is the Government who carry forward the representation of the local authority. It is for that reason, and knowing that local authorities will want to have some care as to what they want included in that report, that I felt it would be right to have in the statute that local authorities should be given reasonable time.
Tempers will become fairly frayed when this comes to be implemented on whatever local authorities might be affected. I know the Government may be thinking that I only put in this amendment in order to further delay matters. In actual fact the phrase "reasonable time" could be and has been construed before as being nothing to be afraid of; we have virtually a statement from the Government that they are going to afford reasonable time. To that extent and on the basis of other information we have received from the Secretary of State I am reasonably happy. But I want to impress upon the Minister of State the importance of the timing aspect, bearing in mind that the local authority do not deal directly in making a report to the House of Commons. Their representations are made to the Secretary of State and it is the Secretary of State who reports to the House of Commons and who includes within that report the local authority's representations. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 27, leave out from ("which") to ("the") in line 30 and insert ("are in the opinion of the Secretary of State of a similar type to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in relation to putting a local authority in the dock, the Secretary of State stacks up all the cards in his favour and against the local authority. The criteria he has to use in determining that the expenditure of any local authority or joint board has been excessive and unreasonable are listed here. The Bill states that the Secretary of State:
"(a) may (in addition to the matters to which in terms of that paragraph regard must be had) have regard …
1152
"(iii) to such other financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like criteria as he considers appropriate".
That wording is already in the Bill and will remain in the Bill. The subsection also states that the Secretary of State may have regard:
"(i) to expenditure or estimated expenses, in that or any preceding year, of other local authorities which the Secretary of State is satisfied are closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable) with the local authority concerned".
I do not know how any Government could cover themselves, or how any Secretary of State could cover himself, so clearly with powers which could not be challenged, with wording such as,
"closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable)".
I have asked for a definition of what that means but I do not think anyone could give me one. This is a case of over-cautiousness on the part of the Government in making a statute that contains words which are quite meaningless. From that point of view I think the Government have demonstrated their own fears in respect of the powers they are taking.
I hope the Government will think again about this. I do not believe it would affect the actual carrying out of the statute or the Government's intentions, but it would give an indication that the Government are prepared to be a little more reasonable rather than cover themselves with all these caveats, such as
"closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable)".
If ever any judge had to define this—and I do not know whether there are any judges left in the Chamber—I wonder what he would make of it. I wonder what any judge would make of these two phrases. So I say, out with them. That is what I suggest. I trust that on this occasion the Government will see that my advice could be followed, and I beg to move.
5.49 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment proposes that, in being satisfied that a local authority's estimated expenses are excessive and unreasonable, the Secretary of State be afforded discretion to have regard to other authorities of a similar type in place of the discretion presently in the Bill, to have regard to closely comparable authorities.
The amendment, it will be observed, does not do away with the need for making comparisons. These will still be needed to establish whether or not another authority was of a similar type. The object of giving the Secretary of State discretion to make comparisons is that any assessment he makes that estimated expenses are excessive and unreasonable should be as fair as possible. The clause directs his attention to other authorities which are as closely comparable as possible so that no valid comparison could be made which was not with an authority of a similar type to the authority planning to incur excessive and unreasonable estimates of expenses.
That is why the Bill requires the Secretary of State in having regard to other authorities to have regard to those other authorities closely comparable with the authority concerned; in other words, authorities which are sufficiently akin in as many respects as possible.

1153
The Bill therefore safeguards the authority in this respect while the proposed amendment would expose the authority to much wider and potentially less favourable comparisons. In other words, the amendment, if accepted, would lay a less onerous duty on the Secretary of State than does the existing provision in the Bill and it would or could be unfair to a local authority.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to give examples? There are very wide differences between local authorities in Scotland. Which authority, for instance, would be closely comparable to Strathclyde? Which authority would be closely comparable to the district council of Glasgow? These are two authorities which by the size of their populations are very different from any other. I wonder what the comparison would be.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord has produced two examples which are incomparable. There is no other region like Strathclyde and no local authority of any sort, let alone a district, which is like Glasgow. What this provision does not do is to force the Secretary of State to do the impossible, to make comparisons where it is not possible or justified; but it enjoins him to seek to draw the fairest possible comparison that he can and then to make his judgment. I anticipate that it will far more frequently apply to district councils than to a region.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, the effect of which must be that there will be a substantial number of local authorities in Scotland who by the nature of either their area—perhaps some of the enormous territorial ones with little population—or by the nature of their population, stand on their own, and where this provision will not be available to the Secretary of State because he would not be able to compare like with like.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am fascinated by the tender regard that the Minister of State has for the local authorities that he does not want me to put in words which might make it easier for the Secretary of State and involve the local authorities in much greater difficulties. The trouble is that the words are already there. I wonder whether the noble Earl would look at the paragraph we are amending. The original words which were spoken about in Section 5 of the 1966 Act were:
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied—
that a local authority or a joint board have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions, regard being had to the standards maintained by other authorities and boards which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, of a similar type"—
These are the words I want to put in—
"to the local authority or, as the case may be, joint board concerned …".
So the noble Earl had better get busy on Third Reading, for I will have an amendment down incorporating the words that he said are irreplaceable and fair to the local authorities. We should require, in the interests of uniformity, to have them in that section as well.
I know, if I can exercise my powers of telepathy,
1154
that the two sections of the clause are different. One deals with standards. But if it is good enough for default in that that comparison should be made with other local authorities of a similar type then surely it is right that we should have it later on when we are dealing with default in respect of unreasonable and excessive rates. Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State could have regard to them without coming to any conclusion. It would not determine or wipe out his power to act that if you cannot compare Glasgow with Edinburgh or with anywhere else that renders nugatory any action that he would like to take. That is only one thing that he will have to have regard to.
The trouble with this particular power being inserted in Clause 5 is that the draftsmen have been clever to do it this way; but it has defects. One of the defects is the fact that already there are things they have to have regard to; and here is another long list which duplicates and, in this particular case of similar types (and then there are the new words that the Government propose to put in) which conflict to a certain extent.
We are dealing with the 1966 Act and your Lordships have not got it before you. We are dealing once again in legislation by reference, amending by reference. I am sure that most of your Lordships do not know what we are doing. But noble Lords can take my assurance that the words I propose to put into the Bill are already there in the 1966 Act—so that they cannot have all these defects that the Minister of State ascribed to them.
I do not suppose that at this stage of the Bill a fine point like that will worry the Government very much. I do not know that it will worry the local authorities very much; but it amuses me as a person who has taken an interest in drafting Scottish legislation over the past 35 years and I have always been fascinated by the kind of excuse that is used to turn down amendments. The noble Earl need not worry about drafting amendments. He could accept them. They will go through another place easily. Now the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has made sure that the Bill will go back to another place, provided that we accept the amendments that at his instance the Minister of State has put down on the Marshalled List. But, as far as this amendment is concerned, I think there is excessive caution on the part of the Minister. Perhaps I should withdraw the amendment and let us go on to something more important.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 10
Page 7, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In the report to be laid before Parliament as mentioned in 5(1)(b) above the Secretary of State shall detail and explain the criteria which he applied and the categories of estimated expenses he thought fit to leave out of account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the report laid before Parliament as mentioned in Section 5(1)(b) that we have already heard about from the Minister of State, I think that the Secretary of State should detail and explain the criteria which he has applied and the categories of estimated expenses that he thought fit to leave out of account. I think this is out of fairness to the local authorities and out of fairness to the House

1155
of Commons who come to judge whether or not the Secretary of State was right in seeking to reduce the rate support grant of some particular authority.
One of the important things about this is the timing. Neither House of Parliament is very keen on retrospective legislation, but here we have the classic case. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, earlier today telling us he was not going to do something this year although some of his information is in relation to expenses this year. It is going to be next year to penalise the local authorities. Here we have the position where the Government are going to penalise the local authorities as from the start of this financial year, and in Scotland that financial year has already started. He has not the power to deal with it yet. Today is 2nd June. I do not know when he is going to get this Bill through. We have to have another stage in this House and then the Bill has to go, if amended, to the Commons. This is why the Government have set their face against any amendment hitherto until the power of the disablement lobby has got at them—I am very glad of it and I support them. If the Bill is amended, it will need to go to the Commons. From the Commons it will need to come back here.
Of course this takes us on. The Government then have to inform a local authority of their intention and give that local authority an opportunity—a reasonable time—to reply to this allegation of carelessness in the use of local government expenditure. That is going to take time. Then the order has to go to the House of Commons. Time has to be found in the House of Commons for it. I know that the Scottish Office are very careful because they have been rapped once or twice. They will make absolutely certain that that order is in keeping with the statute. It will be scrutinised by a committee and eventually debated because it will be an affirmative order.
How long is all this going to take? It is going to be the month of July at least. They had better hurry up because if its goes to the end of July they will have to wait till the end of October for they cannot use their power until after the House of Commons has had their say—so. What a mess they are going to be in then. Goodness gracious! the local authorities will be getting their estimates ready for the next year.
If the Minister of State goes to his department and finds out from that department the whole time-tabling of events in relation to rate support grant, he will find exactly how difficult the whole thing is going to be, from a time-tabling point of view. He will look twice and think twice before he institutes these proceedings. I see him getting into an unholy mess and the Government will only have themselves to blame. I want to see in this report full details of the use that the Government have made of these powers and the restriction placed upon them by Parliament in relation to the criteria that they have to use and in relation to the categories of estimated expenditure that the Minister thought fit to leave out of account. These words, of course, come from the clause because this is the last of the power given to the Secretary of State; he leaves out of account such category of expenses as he thinks fit.
We know quite well that he could leave out categories of expenses and he would make the sins of the local
1156
authority look even greater. You could leave out some categories of expenses and indeed the local authority could be very virtuous indeed. From that point of view, we have not got a proper definition. Our discussions have been very cursory on participation certainly. On the other side of the House they have been absolutely nil in respect of this Bill. They are prepared to shut their eyes and give what powers they like to the local authority. We have not a definition of the estimated expenses that he is going to leave out of account.
Bear in mind that the Secretary of State at Second Reading in another place said that he was not interested in individual category expenses; he was concerned only about the aggregate. With due respect, he has changed his mind about that. If he sees fit, he can leave out a certain category of expenditure which must of course be related to the rates. It is for that reason, because I think it would be fair to the House, the Members of the House of Commons and to the local authorities concerned, that I think we should lay down what should be detailed within the report that is laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment refers to "Section 5(1)(b) above" and as such is, if I may say so, inept because that part of the Act does not refer to "the report to be laid before Parliament". That is really a trifling objection to the amendment compared with the argument on the merits. Going back to Section 5 of the 1966 Act, the reports which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and which must be approved by resolution in another place before a proposed reduction in rate support grant can be made must state the amount of and the reasons for the proposed reduction and set out any representations made by the authority concerned with respect to the proposed reduction.
In other words, the report must set out in detail the case which the authority will have to answer and it would in any event have to do this by reference to the criteria laid down so far as is applicable to the particular case. It is quite unnecessary to spell out in the Bill, as proposed by the noble Lord's amendment, matters which could not be omitted from the report because they constitute some of the reasons for making it. The authorities have already been notified by a circular of the excluded categories of expenditure for 1981–82, such as capital expenditure, housing expenditure, loan charges and so on.
If the House of Commons is not satisfied with the reasons for a proposed reduction, approval to the reduction may well be withheld. Appropriate reasons could well go beyond the criteria to which the Secretary of State is allowed to have regard by the provisions of the Bill.
Practical operation of the provisions in the Bill would also mean that the categories of estimated expenses the Secretary of State thought fit to leave out of account in assessing excessive and unreasonable expenses would have to be made public long before any report in respect of a grant reduction were laid before Parliament. If the provisions in the Bill are to be effective, it is important that local authorities are informed in advance of finalising budgets the expenditure base on which the Secretary of State will assess

1157
whether or not expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. Such public indication has already been given in respect of the current financial year, which was one of the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, complained about. On 4th March this year in the Scottish Office Finance Circular No. 7/1981 the Secretary of State intimated to local authorities the categories of estimated expenses which, if the Bill were enacted, he would exclude from consideration in any assessment that he might make under the provisions in the Bill. In this connection, I can assure the House that prior notice of this intimation was made in another place when the Bill was then being considered in Committee.
The amendment would do nothing to safeguard the position of a local authority who might be the subject of action under the provisions in the Bill; the provisions in the amendment are no substitute for the vigilance of the local authority concerned and of the other place in seeing that the Secretary of State presents all the information which existing statute at present requires him to present when proposing a grant reduction. Moreover, the amendment implies making public the basis on which excessive and unreasonable expenditure will be assessed at a stage in the proceedings when such intimation would have lost much of its value. In other words, it would be far too late. The amendment therefore would not in fact give the advantages which the noble Lord claims for it and I must ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not agree with everything that the noble Earl has said and I do not understand this point of it being far too late. The report has to be made anyway. He cannot get the order without the report and the report must contain this information. Why does the noble Earl suggest it is far too late at that time? I do not think it makes sense what he has been saying about that. It has to be made public at that time. I have been trying to ensure that the things which are said are actually included in the report. Remember that the report is not in this statute that we are considering, but it was in the original statute. This is one of the difficulties about trying to mould a statute that is already there and to import new powers, and then take it for granted that certain things will follow.
I am reasonably happy about the answer from the point of view of the content of the report, but I want to make sure that we know at that time and that Parliament will know at that time just exactly that the Government have followed through. And of course some people will be vigilant and others will not be vigilant. Governments get away with an awful lot. The Minister need not shake his head. It has been discovered more than a year after a certain order has gone through the House that it was ultra vires, and I could list one or two statutes in respect of that. It may well be that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, just happened to be preoccupied at the time so that this thing was allowed to happen and it would not be the first time that I have had to apologise to the House for this kind of thing having been done by the Scottish Office. It is important that we get everything as it should be. However, I shall not press this to a Division.
1158
I am satisfied with the answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
"Local referendum
. Before making an order under section 5 of the 1966 Act as amended by this Act, the Secretary of State shall cause to be held in the area concerned a local referendum of those electors entitled to vote at local authority elections to seek their approval of his determination; and the result of that shall be included in his report to Parliament if he decides to proceed with the order.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move a new clause the effect of which would be that before the Secretary of State took this drastic action of overthrowing the authority of a local authority in Scotland he should cause to be held an advisory local referendum so that local electors would be able to tell him exactly what they thought about the local authority and the Government and their proceedings.
Noble Lords who were here will remember I suggested that the only people who had the right to question the wisdom or otherwise of a locally elected assembly such as a district or regional council, an islands authority or the like, were the people who elected them. I suggested that one of the mistakes made in local government reform was that it meant one could only have an election every four years, whereas traditionally in the Scottish burghs each ward had three members, and one member—a third of the council—went out every year; so each year a local population could give effect to its feelings about the particular people or the particular balance within the council at that time.
I said I would try to look at this and see whether we could bring back some of that opportunity of getting an annual point of view from the council; but it is not quite so easy because nowadays within any ward there is only one representative. It was always so on the county council anyway, that the area only had the one. But that left me with the choice of perhaps having annual elections. I do not think anyone would welcome that. From an administrative point of view it would have been far too burdensome. The other possibility would be to have the term of office of a local councillor made into two years instead of four years. That is also worth considering. It may well be that in all our reconsideration of local government that is something we should bear in mind, because the only people who have the right properly to discipline their local representatives are the local electors.
Then I felt that there is one other way which has been used before; and that is to have a local referendum. Referenda are not new to Scotland. We used to have a referendum on whether or not any particular area should become a "dry" area. If so many electors indicated they were dissatisfied with the position, they could force what was virtually a local referendum on the subject of "no licence, no change". There were many such elections held at one time. I would hasten to add that I drew up the Bill that wiped that out: I was not Secretary of State when it was passed but I felt that the time had expired for that procedure on such a narrow point.
However, in relation to something as important as interfering with the whole financial arrangements and the services provided by a local authority, it could be justifiable to have a speedy local referendum on the subject. I hope the Government will not say, as they did with the last one: "Ah, but it is imperfect in the drafting". I do not think that the last one was all that imperfect in the drafting. I think I included a "b", and also if I had said "of this Act" instead of "above" I should have been right. But this one I know lacks considerably in follow-through in respect of creating a schedule and a scheme, and the rest of it, but I wanted to get the feelings of the Government and of Members of the House on the principle. I do think that as regards something which has never been done before—taking away the authority of a local authority in its most important aspect of rates and the spending of money—we should think of being able to resort to a local referendum of the electors. Let them give the answer.
We heard something about this earlier on about local elections in England and what the Government were proposing to do in the Statement which was repeated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Here is something which the electors have already elected—though of course the Scottish electors did not elect a Tory Government. There are 71 Members of Parliament for Scotland. There are 44 Labour Members and in respect of the Government there are 22; so they have no mandate for what they are doing. But the people who have a mandate are the local councillors.
It may well be that the local councillors have changed their minds and think that the Government are right. But the only quick way to find out without waiting for the next two or three years to pass, is to institute a system of a local referendum. I think it would be a form of discipline upon local councillors and also upon the Government because they would require to get the support of the local people. I believe I say in the amendment that the result of that poll should be included in the report to Parliament if the Government decide to proceed with the order. It is a simple way out of the dilemma we are in because of the changes that took place in local government reorganisation.
I tend to think that four years is far too long for a term for a local council. This is one fairly speedy way in which we could sound out the opinions of the people, and if the local electors agreed with the Government they would have no hesitation at all and everyone should be able to rest satisfied that they have had their say. But for a Government to come in and handle local councils in this way is tantamount to making a mockery of local democracy. This is one of the great dangers. The independence of local government is going with this Bill, the whole tradition of local democracy is being put at risk and, of course, so far as electors are concerned, this will lead to a very dangerous rise in scepticism about the whole business of politics and local government. So as a way out, I beg to move.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, hinted in the Committee stage that he was going to bring forward an amendment of
1160
this kind on Report, I was most intrigued, because for many years I sat on Thurso Town Council which, being a small burgh, was elected on the principle that one sat for three years and a proportion of the council stood for election every year.
It had a most salutary effect. It gave a certain stability to the council, because there were always some people who had not stood for election, who knew what had happened before, who were well acquainted with the commitments entered into by the council and so on. It also meant that a fairly large proportion of the council had to report again to the electorate, had to stand for election and had to justify the actions of that council of which they had formed part over the preceding period. I found it a very satisfactory system under which to serve, and I think that the people of the small burghs found it a very satisfactory way of appointing people to serve them on their councils.
I must say that I regret the passing of the system in the local government reorganisation. We have now lost the system and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has thought hard and long and has not felt it right to suggest that that system should be brought back in any way. He has instead suggested a system of referenda. I am not at all sure that I am happy about that, because, if you are asking an electorate to elect people, that is something which they can assess and can understand. They can look at the performance of people, watch them in action and read about their deeds and sayings in the local press and so on. They have as much of the information as it is possible to have upon which to form their judgment.
But if you suddenly spring upon them a referendum, then you must give them all the information about the subject which is being referred, and I am not at all sure that that is possible. I am not at all sure that it is even desirable that you should, in effect, be asking the electorate to be doing the governing. The point is that they should be satisfied with the level of service that they are getting from their councillors and, if that is what one is after, then the quickest route to achieving the kind of satisfaction which used to be obtained by the electorates of small burghs would be to institute a system of proportional representation, a single transferable vote system or something of that kind, as a method of electing councillors.
In that way, you would see that all shades of opinion were properly allowed for at election time, and would have a chance to reward those who served the community faithfully and well by giving them a good chance of re-election on merit and not on a sheer psephological swing. I do not think I can go along with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, on referenda, and I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set by including them in this Bill.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with his long experience of local government, had to say on this matter. I suggest that the apparent locus which this amendment would impart to local referendums would be quite unacceptable, though not because it refers to local referendums. I do not at all dissent from the notion of local referendums, if they are held on purely local matters and when it is desired to measure local

1161
opinion. They can frequently be organised by local bodies of various kinds and there is much to commend them. But to impose a local referendum backed by the authority of statute would need very careful consideration by Parliament as to the extent of the referendum, the circumstances in which it might take place and the matters upon which it might express a view. The whole matter should, I suggest, be subjected to a rather more thorough inquiry and debate than is possible at the Report stage of this Bill. Such thorough scrutiny would be appropriate for proposals for referendums on questions connected with local government. At the very least, one would have to consider very carefully in detail the locus of referendums within the present system of locally elected councils providing local services and levying local rates, and I question whether this Bill is the proper place in which to introduce statutory referendums.
What the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is trying to do, with a certain ingeniousness, is to give a veneer or gloss of democratic decision-making to the process in Section 5 of the 1966 Act. One has to consider that the people who would express their opinion, on whether the expenditure of their own local authority had been excessive and unreasonable, would, in many cases, be electors who were not ratepayers, and in many other cases the people who did pay rates, such as local businesses, would have no vote at all. That is why I am led to condemn the proposal as a democratic gloss.
But there is a more important objection to the proposed new clause. In the existing legislation in the 1966 Act and in the provisions in the Bill, Parliament has laid, and is laying, a duty upon the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a local authority's expenditure, or planned expenditure, is excessive and unreasonable and it is for that reason that he may be of the opinion that grant should be reduced. Before a reduction in grant can be made the House of Commons must approve a report stating the amount of, and reasons for, the proposed reductions and setting out any representations by the authority concerned. This procedure is a fitting part of a system in which the House of Commons approves in a rate support grant order a total amount of money and how it is to be distributed, and subsequently votes the requisite funds.
Local authorities have a place in that system in that they are consulted before a rate support grant order is made and laid before the House of Commons. Local authorities are also afforded a place in the procedures for reduction of grant in Section 5 of the 1966 Act which also apply to the provisions in Clause 14 of this Bill; they must be afforded the opportunity to make representations and these representations, if any, must be reported to the House of Commons. But the proposed new clause attempts, in effect, to impart to a local referendum the apparent "privilege" of "approval" of any approach by the Secretary of State to the House of Commons, regarding his stewardship of monies voted to him.
I suggest that a local referendum cannot enjoy such a privilege. It cannot have any locus by way of approval of voted moneys. It is for these constitutional reasons that I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his arguments and, indeed, his amendment. There is also a drafting deficiency, in that the amendment refers to an order under Section 5 of the 1966 Act. There are no order-
1162
making powers of that nature in Section 5. However, I do not rely upon that argument. I rely, as I have said, on the constitutional and the general merits of the case.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am not surprised; I am astounded by some of the reasoning. Let me take the last reason: that local government has a part to play in the procedure of rate support grant, that they are asked how they feel about it and that their response is included in the report that is laid before Parliament. The noble Earl said that local ratepayers should not have a statutory power in relation to voted money. But we are not dealing only with the question of voted money. We are dealing with the power which is given to the Secretary of State to refuse local authorities their traditional right to raise monies to pay for their services. Not only have they had that right; the Government used to insist that they put money into those services. For about 40 years a housing subsidy could not be obtained unless the local ratepayers also paid a certain sum. It was part of the bargain. You got a subsidy from the Government only if you provided money levied from the local ratepayers.
Not only are the Government taking away part of the rate support grant that they have given; they are following it up by refusing permission to local authorities to raise from their own rates moneys to make up that loss. This has got nothing to do with voted money. It has got everything to do with the rights of local authorities. This is why we say that local authorities are losing their independence. The Government are taking away from local authorities an independent right which they have always enjoyed. It is one of the justifications for my amendment. I started on this road only because I promised the House that I would think about it and see whether or not I could find some way of bringing back that power for local electors as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl referred to who could vote and to the fact that some local ratepayers are denied that right at local elections. We have known about this for a long time and we have to accept this as a fact. This would have been one way of dealing with the problem. I do wish that the Government had come clean. The real reason why they will not do it is that it would take so long. Polling stations, ballot boxes, papers would have to be organised and prepared. It would frustrate the desire of the Government to hammer the local authorities and to hammer them quickly. I am perfectly sure that the thought has crossed the mind of the Minister of State, or some of his advisers, "This is Ross at it again, trying to frustrate the will of Parliament. He is putting in another hurdle". It did cross my mind that it would have the effect of slowing down the process. I seek to slow it down in order to give the Government time to think and, indeed, to think again. There is no harm in the Government thinking again, especially in relation to the nature of the step they are going to take.
I shall not divide the House. I am disappointed in the Government's reaction. Do they not see how desirable it would be to bring in the local electors? This is one of the weaknesses of the Bill. At the time of local government reorganisation the term of office

1163
was three years. In the burghs there was a changeover of one-third of the council every year. This was excellent, though in some cases this almost resulted in heart failure because there could be a complete swing in the balance of power on the council. It was suggested that because there was a loss of interest in local elections people were not voting, so it was decided to have elections every four years. It was thought that this would make the councils more independent, attract a better type of councillor and generate more interest in local elections. This has not proved to be the case. None of the prognostications about the future of local government after reorganisation was well founded.
I hope that the Government will think again about the term of office, about reorganisation into wards and about the number of people represented in those wards. We should return to elections at least every three years. At one time I had in mind elections every two years. This is a way of reaching the local ratepayers. The only people who have the right to discipline are the people who gave the mandate, and they should have the right to take it back. It is quite wrong for the Government, especially for a Government in the position in which this one is, having no mandate from Scotland, to handle people who have a direct mandate in this particular way. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Redetermination and lowering of regional, district or general rate]:
6.39 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, leave out lines 16 to 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we are dealing with the powers of a local authority to determine new regional, district or general rates. Once again, having determined the change he is going to insist upon, the Secretary of State can come along and may, by order under subsection (3),
"repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the determination, levy or payment of a regional, general or district rate and such determination, levy or payment is affected by a determination under subsection (1) above".
Again I object to this. The Government are covering themselves against mistakes which they have made and against negligence. The Minister of State will of course get up and murmur again the word "flexibility". It is an appalling state of affairs if a Government can come along and in almost two consecutive clauses can say, "We may not have covered everything, but don't worry. If we discover that there is a mistake—that we have left out something that we should have put in or that something we put in should not be there at all—we'll change it, by order". That is not the way in which the Houses of Parliament used to work. In those days if you produced a statute you produced a statute amending it; you did not do it the easy way by order. I want to get yet another explanation from the Minister of State as to why these words are there. The same kind of answer that he
1164
gave us before will do for him, but it will not do for me. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, what Clause 15 does in effect is to give local authorities which budget for excessive and unreasonable expenditure a way of avoiding the reduction in grant which might otherwise follow. Effectively, by enabling authorities facing the possibility of a cut in grant to reduce their rate poundage in the course of a financial year, it gives them the choice of either giving the money back to their own local ratepayers, or returning it to the Exchequer. The Government hope that authorities will have regard to the interests of their ratepayers and will follow the former course, and we aim to remove as far as possible any difficulties which statutes might place in the path of an authority which decides to redetermine its rate.
That is why Clause 15(3)—which this amendment seeks to remove—is included in the Bill. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, wishes to remove that subsection. It empowers the Secretary of State, by order subject to the positive resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament, to repeal or amend enactments relating to the determination, levy or collection of a redetermined rate. The intention is to use the order-making power after full consultation with local authorities, to modify enactments which might hinder the smooth administration of a redetermined rate. The order-making power will be used to aid local authorities and so to press this amendment would be in no one's interest, least of all the local authorities.
In effect the noble Lord accuses the Government, and my department in particular, of negligence; in other words he asks why all these repeals and amendments which could be the subject of an order are not included substantively in the Bill. The answer to that is approximately the one that I gave on the previous occasion; namely, that comprehensive provision could not be made because of the difficulty in identifying all the statutory provisions requiring amendment in advance of detailed consideration by local authority and Government officials. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will know, the matters here are extremely technical and the need for amendment is only being identified after detailed consultation and examination and I suggest that these are matters which are appropriate for an order which can be made under subsection (3) rather than for primary legislation. Subsection (3) is really to help rather than to hinder the process and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will come to see it in that light.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not see it in that light because I read subsection (1) and it is that which gives the power in relation to the reassessment of the lower rate, not subsection (3). At the present time in Scotland once the rate is fixed one cannot declare a supplementary rate to get further money or declare a new rate which is lower and give money back. That is not "on" in Scotland. I gather that in England and Wales a supplementary rate can be declared and so more monies can be obtained from the people.

1165
Subsection (3) is a different thing altogether; it means changes in relation to other statutes. The Government have been in such a rush to get this thing done and already they are out of time and it becomes retrospective legislation, so they put in this portfolio clause giving them power to
"repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as"—
it relates to this. It is not the kind of power that Parliament is used to giving to Ministers and Parliament should not do it. If they feel they want to do something in respect of which they require additional powers they should comb through the statutes and make the changes in this statute. That is the way it is normally done and there is no justification for putting this in once again. This is not the first time because we have had it in the previous clause as well.
I am not really disappointed because I do not expect very much from the Minister of State, but I am disappointed in the draftsmen in the Scottish Office because I know from my own experience that they are very thorough and very dependable in what they do. It was decided that there was not time to search through all the statutes so they have covered themselves with this kind of subsection. This is not the matter of principle that was suggested by the noble Earl. It is once again a high-handed attitude in relation to legislation and it is one to which I take the strongest objection. I shall not withdraw this amendment, but I will allow it to be defeated without a Division.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that if some local councils and councillors had been more responsible in their management of the financial affairs of councils this Bill would not have been necessary? It has been the great extravagance of some councils and the extreme extravagance with ratepayers' money and borrowing a great deal of money which basically has been the cause of this Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, in no way do I approve of unnecessary, undesirable and extravagant expenditure, but it is this House that has placed the local authorities in the position they are in—apart from the other place—by wishing upon them a tremendous number of duties and insisting that they maintain certain standards. That cannot be done without spending money. Because of the national aspect the Government have supported them up to a point but this Government have manipulated the formula in respect of rate support grant, in the calculation of the expenditure that they have to make, which they have kept deliberately low and then they have even more deliberately reduced their share of that expenditure. The result is that there must be an increase in rates, but the responsibility for that is not that of the local authorities; it is the responsibility of the people who manipulated the formula and that is the Government themselves. I am sorry that the noble Viscount was not present earlier to hear about what was included and what was not included in respect of categories of expenditure and he will be sad to know that one
1166
category of expenditure which is not to be taken into account is housing.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 16 [Local authority's estimated expenditure relevant factor in calculating amount of resources element payable to them]:
6.49 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("the year 1981–82 or for any year thereafter") and insert ("any year after 1981–82.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment because it introduces the whole question of the Government doing this and then applying it in the year 1981–82. The year 1981–82 has already started. Every Scotsman who is an occupier of property in Scotland has already received from his local authority the assessment of his rates. It has already been fixed and if any change is necessary it should apply not this year but next year and the Government then would be on fairly safe ground. I have listed the nature of the programme before us. The Bill is not law yet and we are well into the financial year 1981–82. Before he can act at all the Secretary of State has to make up his mind about which local authority he is going to deal with; having made up his mind about that he has to get in touch with them; he has to have all his arguments formulated and let them know what they have done and what he is going to do about it. They have to consider that, and the Minister of State has said that they will have a reasonable amount of time. The local authority have to reply and the Secretary of State has to consider the reply. Then he has to draw up a report and that report goes to the House of Commons.
The House of Commons is not sitting waiting for an order coming from the Scottish Office; it may be some while before it finds time to deal with this in the House because it will be a controversial matter; it is not the kind of thing that will go through on the nod. This takes us way beyond the month of June. We are into July. If the Government do not manage to get it finished before a certain event towards the end of July, when it is hoped Parliament will not be sitting, it means it will be the month of October, and probably towards the end of October, before they can do anything about this. This is to deal with the year 1981–82, when local authorities already according to their timetable are being hammered by the Government in relation to their estimates for next year.
This is one of the most dangerous things the Government are doing. They are going to run themselves into the ground in relation to timetables. Indeed, I have already heard some local authorities with whom I have been in touch suggesting that the whole time-tabling of all the things that are laid down for local authorities to do, and to do in co-operation with the Scottish Office, has gone sadly awry and changes will need to be made there. So I plead with the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his Statement said that they were going to take action in relation to England and Wales, but the action which is going to be taken is not this year but next year, and that is the

1167
proper way to do it. Have your legislation and then apply your legislation to the next financial year, not to a financial year already well worn. It is not good enough to say, "We gave warnings of what we were going to do to the local authorities". What matters in relation to legislation is the date of the passing of the Act and the date of the taking of the powers after the Act has been passed. I plead with the Government; this is a serious and very important amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, moved and spoke to an amendment in Committee which was similar to if not identical with this amendment. I have listened for any new argument that the noble Lord might deploy to titillate the House to take a fresh view of the matter, but I did not hear any, and I am certainly not going to weary your Lordships by rehearsing all the arguments that I deployed on the last occasion. The ground has been well covered already.
The Government take the view that it is essential that the powers for which provision is made in Clauses 14, 15 and 16 of this Bill should be available in 1981–82. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he would not have thought it necessary to introduce these provisions at all if in recent years all local authorities had shown moderation and regard to the national interest in framing their expenditure plans, and to that extent I agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene. Unfortunately, it has not been the case. Unhappily, there are authorities which are planning to incur expenditure levels in 1981–82 grossly out of line with the national economic interest and the interests of ratepayers. As is well known, and has been well known for a long time, the Government firmly intend to take action under these provisions, and we say that the sooner they are able to do so the better.
I do not think I can help the House very much further. The noble Lord implied that these provisions were retrospective, but when I addressed the House in Committee I gave details of the notice that was given both to the House of Commons and to the local authorities on a number of occasions, and specifically in Finance Circular 16/1980, which was issued on 22nd December. The local authorities have been forewarned of what was in the Government's mind. We have been scrupulous in telling them what would happen in effect if they did not mend their ways. In the circumstances I am afraid there is absolutely nothing as between the Government and the Opposition on this matter, and I can only urge the noble Lord, in relation to the Division which we had on the last occasion, to withdraw his amendment on this matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, my Lords, I think the country and Scotland are entitled to know exactly how determined the Government are to get this vicious legislation, and Scotland should have the right to know who votes for it and who does not. I have no intention of withdrawing it.
6.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Ardwick, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Maelor, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Collison, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gosford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Thurso, V.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Janner, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McFadzean, L.

Avon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mansfield, E.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Boardman, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Northchurch, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

de Clifford, L.

Renton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rochdale, V.

De La Warr, E.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Savile, L.

Faithfull, B.

Selkirk, E.

Falkland, V.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Spens, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stamp, L.

Gainford, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Trenchard, V.

Kimberley, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vickers, B.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Loudoun, C.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably the moment when we might adjourn the Report stage

1169
for the dinner adjournment until 7.50 p.m. Therefore, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Companies Bill
7.6 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Requirements to inform the Actuary and obtain his report
. After section 22A of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 there shall be inserted—
"Report on long term business.
22B. Regulations may be made placing a duty on an insurance company to provide the appointed actuary regularly with such information as he may reasonably require about the financial conduct of its long-term business and to obtain a report from him before making significant changes in that conduct.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Your Lordships will recall that in the course of the debate in Committee my noble friend Lord Jacques raised the question of the position that occurred in 1974, when two life assurance companies failed, causing considerable hardship to thousands of policyholders. My noble friend pointed out to your Lordships that one of the companies had failed because it had issued a large number of policies on the basis of a single premium and that arrangement was unsound. The other company failed because it had invested too much of its life policy funds in speculative property investments. My noble friend on that occasion moved an amendment that was designed to remedy that state of affairs by making it compulsory that the actuary be informed by the company of changes in policy.
I shall not weary the House by pursuing the detailed arguments that were put forward by my noble friend on that occasion. However, at the conclusion of the debate I did say, if your Lordships recall, that I would like the Government to give further consideration to this question, to see whether there was any way in which the interests of the policyholders could be protected by the company being required to give interim information to its actuary in order that the actuary could maintain a more constant vigilance over the activities of the company rather than, as it were, reporting ex post facto. The amendment that I am moving today is in different terms from the amendment moved by my noble friend and is put forward with the objective of inquiring whether the Government have any further proposals to add in this connection.
I am indeed well aware that the British Insurers' Association do not think that an amendment of this kind is necessary and I have had a similar communication from the Life Offices Association to almost identical effect. We in this House always, of course, receive representations from responsible organisations with a considerable amount of respect; but we cannot always feel ourselves bound by the sentiments that
1170
they express. That, so far as I personally am concerned, applies to this particular section. It may well be that the information which is required and the procedure under which it should be rendered, as incorporated in the new clause which I propose, may be inconvenient to the insurance companies.
That I willingly concede. But we in this House have a far wider responsibility than just to those who actually conduct the business; we have a very wide responsibility indeed to the public at large who take advantage of the various insurance facilities that are offered to them by the practitioners in this field. These individuals have a right, where we conceive it is wise, to the protection that we can give them. Therefore, I am hopeful that if the noble Lord on behalf of the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment that I have tabled, the Government are at least prepared to consider and, indeed, to declare what additional measures they propose in the light of circumstances that may arise between the times when the examinations by the actuaries and/or the auditors of the company take place.
The actions of a company's auditors are, of course, governed by statute. They normally produce a report some weeks, or perhaps even months, after the end of the financial year of the insurance company concerned. The responsibilities of the actuary are limited to a specific period of time. We seek to lay upon the company the responsibility of providing information to an actuary on an interim basis. It may well be that the wording of the amendment that I have tabled is legally defective in a number of ways and, of course, the arts of the parliamentary draftsmen are frequently denied to those of us who very often speak in a purely political capacity. Nevertheless, we are convinced that it ought not to defeat the ingenuity of Government to devise some means whereby interim protection can be secured. Therefore, I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is always most courteous and receptive to matters of this kind, may be able to provide your Lordships and the public at large with some measure of reassurance. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the whole House will be very grateful, indeed very interested, to have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, proposing the amendment which, as he points out, is marginally different from the amendment and the similar new clause which was proposed by his noble friend Lord Jacques at an earlier stage in the Bill. Indeed, a similar new clause to the one that was proposed in Committee and similar proposals of that type were considered in Committee and at the Report stage in another place. Therefore I think that the House—indeed, all of us—would consider that this matter, which has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, tonight and indeed at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has received very considerable and detailed attention. Certainly none of us would quarrel with that. The appointed actuary plays a very important—indeed, a crucial—role in respect of the company to which he is appointed. He depends very much on the information which he is given.
But this process of consideration has shown up the major difficulty which is raised by all the proposed

1171
forms of the amendment: the lack of proper consideration of its particular need and, therefore, of its possible scope. The Bill before us this evening was preceded by a lengthy process of consultation between the Department of Trade and the bodies which are representative of the insurance industry and, indeed, of the actuarial profession. All those who were consulted were invited to submit proposals for matters which were to be covered by the Bill and, indeed, some of those who were consulted submitted proposals and others did not.
The process of consideration of these proposals and, indeed, of the department's proposals for the Bill clearly showed not just the desirability but also the need to explore thoroughly any substantive new proposals in this field. The matter which is covered by this particular clause and this amendment this evening was not put forward by any major body concerned; nor, I understand, was there any consideration within any of them—that is, the Life Offices Association, the British Insurers' Association or, indeed, the actuarial profession—of even the possibility of putting forward an amendment or this particular clause. But it seems that a decision has been taken by those in the industry who have for sometime been pressing for these amendments to avoid any further discussion with various colleagues in the professions and, indeed, throughout the industry.
As a result of this, we are faced with a position where the need for statutory provision dealing with this grave matter—and I should say that the proposed provision has changed considerably during the progress of the Bill both here and in another place—has not been properly discussed by those who would be directly concerned with it. The Institute of Actuaries, in a recent letter to the Government Actuary about the proposal, pointed out, and was at pains to do so, that the Institute remains unconvinced of the desirability of dealing with these particular matters in the present Bill, even through the power to make regulations.
This then is the difficulty that faces the Government. Without proper consultations the need for further regulations, powers, or whatever, cannot be properly assessed, and without assessment the need for legislation is uncertain. But even if we were to suppose a need that legislation was required, its proper content could not be established if there was not full consultation.
I mentioned that the need had not been properly assessed, but without such assessment of what we might require, discussion of any details of the proposed new clause would be inappropriate. However, I certainly think that I could make one or two general comments on the proposed clause and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, might think that my reply will meet some of the encomium that he showered upon the department, possibly also on me.
Certainly the proposed clause emphasises the continuing role of the actuary; that is very reasonable. But we must remember that there are other important ways by which the policyholder and (as, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned at least twice) the public at large are protected. One of the ways is the actuary's annual report. We also have the auditors' investigation and, thirdly, the scrutiny of the company's
1172
annual returns by the Department of Trade and also by the Government Actuary's Department. Moreover, the transformation of the relationship between appointed actuaries and their companies, from one based on professional guidance and individual working practices to one based on statute, we believe could easily turn out to be an erosion rather than a reinforcement of the strength of the relationships which exist between the profession and the clients, which is evident at the moment.
But one new feature of the version of the clause which we are considering this evening is that it would depend upon the Secretary of State to make regulations. Such a device, laudable though it might seem, would not get round the basic difficulty that until the need for these regulations, or indeed primary legislation, was established and examined any statutory provision that might be necessary or indeed appropriate could not be worked out at least sensibly. Supposing a need were established, then we would find that the matters that could be covered by regulations under this clause could all be irrelevant, but the needs quite otherwise. But if we were to look at the clause as drafted, it seems doubtful whether the matters to be covered by regulations under the clause would add much to it.
In other words, this regulation-making feature might only be a device which we could just switch on and off at will. If so, this would really be unnecessary. Clause 37 provides that orders may be made bringing the Act into force on different days for different purposes. It would be very strange to have a section in the Act that was inoperative because of the way commencement orders had been drafted, but then it would not be common practice to include a clause which provided for regulations though not needing them, and which was only going to be rendered operative if a need and a prospective need, even a hypothetical need, were to be established. In view of all of this we believe it is not surprising that the framework would creak if indeed the foundation of the whole clause is faulty, and we believe that laudable though the objectives are the foundation to the clause is faulty. For that reason I am afraid that once again we could not accept this particular amendment and the clause that we have before us tonight.
Lord Banks: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, gives his reaction to what the noble Lord the Minister has just said, may I say a brief word. I am still a little puzzled as to why the Government do not want this idea, even if they do not want the precise words of this amendment, to be adopted. It is not argued that this information should not be in the hands of the actuary. At least, I understand it is the case that it is generally agreed that the actuary should receive this information. As I understand it, actuaries are not saying that if they did receive this information a burden which was outside their professional competence would be placed upon them.
In most life companies the actuary will be an official of the company and he will be involved in all these decisions, and in many cases he will be the general manager. Therefore, he will know what is going on, and this information will flow to him quite naturally and automatically by his being a prominent, if not the

1173
leading, member of the management team. But where you have a new company they appoint consulting actuaries as a rule from outside their immediate employees; a firm of consulting actuaries who will be their advisers in this respect and will act as their actuaries. I should have thought that in those cases there was just the possibility that this information would not reach the actuaries as early as would be desirable through no fault of the actuary but through perhaps an oversight, or just a disinclination on the part of the company, and if this were a statutory requirement then that situation could not arise.
It would seem to me that what these various amendments have been trying to do, whether they have done it well or not, is just to reinforce what is already happening over the majority of the field, and to see that it happens in perhaps those areas where there could be a tendency for it not to happen unless such steps were taken.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am a little disappointed by the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has given to my remarks, in the course of which I introduced this amendment. The noble Lord spoke of no need having been established. I should have thought that the events of 1974 in which thousands of people lost considerable sums of money in fact established a need. The noble Lord spoke of the interested parties as though they consisted entirely of the insurance companies, or their associations involved. When he spoke of consultation with interested parties he was talking of the professional men involved; he was talking of the companies involved. But surely the people ultimately involved are the public at large.
Who is to speak for the public at large who are at risk when these malpractices take place? I may be a little old-fashioned, but I was under the impression that it was one of the prides of your Lordships' House that they, on occasion, could represent the public at large and put forward their views to your Lordships. All I am seeking to do is to make quite sure that those who may be at the receiving end of such malpractices as do occur, and as in fact occurred in 1974, receive an adequate representation in your Lordships' House, and also receive adequate consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
I willingly accept that ex post facto after the end of the financial year the reports of the actuaries may be in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, or of the appropriate department of state, and that the auditors' reports may also be made public in the normal way, and these reports may be available at varying lengths of time between perhaps six weeks or up to three months after the end of the financial year concerned. But what happens after the reports of the auditors of the insurance company and of their actuaries have been made if, seven days after the report and possibly a year before the next report is to be made, certain malpractices occur?
What happens, for example, if seven days after the approval of the previous year's accounts has been accomplished at the general meeting, and everybody is very happy about it, there is a sudden switch in investment policy which results in unsound investments being made? Is this to lie without any comment until a further year has passed? Until the auditors
1174
make their next report, or until the actuaries make their next report? What this amendment seeks to do is to lay a statutory responsibility on the company to report on a more current basis—if I may use a term which the noble Lord opposite, himself being an accountant, will readily understand, on a management accounting basis—rather than an annual basis so that if these defects occur they can be adequately dealt with at the time.
I realise that I have presented the Government with a formidable problem here. It is difficult to initiate and to draft measures that are capable of being used within ordinary commercial structures on a current basis, yet the risk to the public remains. We on this side of the House are bound to draw attention to it.
We sincerely hope the Government will bear those considerations very carefully in mind as they proceed, otherwise we shall be bound to return to the same theme in circumstances of our own choosing and which may not always be to the convenience of the Government. I do not desire to press the amendment at this stage, because I am well aware of its technical imperfections; but I am sorry to have received the reaction from the Government which the House has received tonight. With those sad concluding words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Transfers of long term business]:
7.31 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 22, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for the words "is to be" there shall be substituted the words "has been";

(b) in paragraph (d) for the words from "on which" to the end there shall be substituted the words "of the first publication of a notice in accordance with paragraph (a) above".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (3) of this clause amends a drafting error which is already apparent in Section 42 of the Insurance Companies Act 1974. The first part of the amendment proposes to add a new paragraph to cure two further faults of drafting in that section which were recently pointed out to the Department of Trade. Section 42 was clearly intended to allow the court to relieve a company petitioning to transfer long-term policies from the obligation to publish the notice that has to appear in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes in two national newspapers as well. As drafted, it frustrates that intention by requiring the notice to be published in two national newspapers before the court can consider whether such publication is necessary.
The first part of that amendment puts the matter right. It will allow a petition to be presented, for the court to consider what publication is necessary, for such publication to take place and, after the required time, for the petition to be considered in full. The second part of the amendment avoids a lack of precision; Section 42(3)(d) refers to the date on which the notice is published. The notice may however be published on more than one date. The amendment

1175
avoids the imprecisions by referring to the first date on which the notice is to be published.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side are happy to support the amendment. Perhaps we may reflect as we consider drafting amendments of this type to an Act of 1974 that at that time, whichever Government were in office, they undoubtedly received the advice from their parliamentary draftsman that the clauses had been drafted impeccably and that no possible amendments were necessary; that they were the incandescence of all legal and draftsmanship wisdom at the time when they were prepared. There is a lesson here both for Governments and Oppositions who in due course will become governments. The lesson is that the parliamentary draftsman's wisdom is not always immutable and perfect, is not always the last possible word that can be conceived in presenting the political intentions of the Government in terms that should be enforced in law. With that reflection, I again express our support for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Sharpies.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Exemption of certain premises used for manufacture or preparation of food from requirement to register with local authority]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("food") in line 12 and insert—
(""(3A) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply so as to require the registration under this section—
(a) of domestic premises, if the only food intended for sale which is prepared or manufactured on them is").
The noble Lord said: I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 togethrr because together they achieve a single purpose. Section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 requires that premises used for the preparation of food must be registered with the local authority. It was never, I think intended that this provision should apply to organisations such as the Women's Institutes, whose members prepare food in their own homes. Recently, however, doubt arose about it and the Bill is the result of that, seeking, as it does, to exempt Women's Institutes and such organisations from the requirement of the 1955 Act.
People's homes are, of course, domestic premises, and the Bill therefore refers to domestic premises, but there are also others worthy organizations—notably the Scouts and Guides—whose members also prepare food in aid of good causes for sale on produce stalls and so
1176
on, and they prepare their food not in people's homes but in scout huts and the like. Therefore, these amendments, having referred first to domestic premises, go on to mention premises of any description provided that the food is not being prepared for sale in the course of trade. I trust that that adequately explains the purpose of the amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This is perhaps not the most important Bill we are discussing this Session, but it is of great importance to many groups of people; we have heard reference to Women's Institutes, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and there are co-operative women's guilds and many other organisations which depend for much of their vitality and livelihood on being able to produce food in their own homes for sale at sales of work, jumble sales and so on, and the intention of the Bill has the wholehearted support of the Opposition. My only concern is whether, if the amendment were made—we feel it is a worthy amendment—it would in any way impede the ultimate progress of the measure on to the statute book.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who I understand is to reply for the Government, will be able to tell your Lordships whether he feels that there would be any impediment to the ultimate progress of the Bill on to the statute book if the amendment were accepted. Our concern is to ensure that the Bill gets onto the statute book as soon as possible.
Baroness Sharples: I am delighted to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I wish that all of our business could be carried out as easily as this. I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am glad to repeat what I said on Second Reading; namely, that the Government support the amendment. The Amendment is not confined purely to scout and guide huts; it relates to premises generally. But I can assure the Committee that this does not open the way for widespread circumvention of registration. This is because the exemption granted by the Bill will not apply if the person preparing the food is doing so in the course of his or her trade or business. Again, if premises have to be registered because they are caught by Section 16, the fact that on occasion food is prepared in them for sale for charitable purposes will not exempt them from registration.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that he was in favour of the amendment so long as it did not impede the passage of the Bill, and I understand that there is no danger of that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, after ("(b)") insert ("of premises of any description if the only food intended for sale which is prepared or manufactured on them is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
[House adjourned during pleasure from 7.43 until 7.50 p.m.].

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
Consideration on Report resumed.
Clause 21 [Methods of fixing aggregate amount of housing support grants]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In estimating the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, the figure for rent shall be the figure for the previous year increased by the percentage allowed in rate support grant for price inflation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, No. 14 takes us to Clause 21, and we have a change of subject because we now come on to the question of housing grants and the conditions applicable thereto. Quite a few years ago there was a complete change in relation to the support of housing and a move away from the individual subsidies applicable to each house for so many years. In the early days it was 40 years; after the war it was 60 years. A solemn pledge was given by Governments that they would support each house that was built by the figure that was put into that particular statute, on condition, of course, that a quarter of the total subsidy would be found by the local authority. So there was a very considerable interest in respect of that; and, of course, at that time there was no bar to a local authority further increasing the subsidy given for local authority houses by putting it on to the rates.
But now we have the whole question in relation to the housing revenues and housing expenditures that have accumulated, and then the striking of a figure and the Government determining what the rate support grant shall be and dividing it out among the authorities according to formula. This, once again, is a place where the Government can manipulate the formula, because if you read the clause at line 29—sub-section (1) refers to Section 1 of the 1978 Act; this, again, is one of the things which take us way back by reference, and the Bill itself is a bit of a mess-up—paragraph (b) says:
"the aggregate amount of relevant income (other than housing support grants) which could reasonably be expected to be credited to the local authorities' housing revenue accounts for that year".
I repeat, "could reasonably be expected to be credited". What does that mean? It means that the Government decide what should be reasonably credited as rents of houses. It is their figure. It is not the actual rent; it is their figure; and, of course, the higher they make that figure the less accrues to the local authority housing account in housing grants. The Government can determine it.
At the present time the Government are wishing upon local authorities a figure for rent increases which amounts virtually to a 40 per cent, increase; and it has been estimated that if this persists for about three years then no housing grants at all will be paid. To that extent it is a very long way indeed from the promised support that was given to local authorities who, in the years after the war, were encouraged by
1178
Governments of both sides. Your Lordships will remember Mr. Macmillan, and that he was going to build 400,000 houses. These houses were built; but the Government promised that for 60 years they would support the loans and the inevitable charges that fell on the local authorities, who were virtually the Government's housing agents.
But here we are now getting into a position whereby, with the Government fixing a notional rent, in effect the local authorities will be denied housing support grant. This is why I say in my amendment:
"In estimating the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, the figure for rent shall be the figure for the previous year increased by the percentage allowed in rate support grant for price inflation".
That is fair enough. We are telling the local authority, "You have got to put your rents up to meet the inflation rate"; and, surely, the inflation rate which the Government have used in the estimates for rate support grant itself is a fair figure—11 per cent. If the Government tell me that, of course, that does not in any way meet the inflation for this current year—and we are talking about 1981–82 as the start of rate support grant, although not this particular change; but we shall come to that later on—then the Government are hoist with their petard of a lower figure, an unrealistic figure for inflation.
But the fact is that it is not an increase to meet inflation that the Government are insisting local authorities should add in respect of rents. They would scream the house down if the rates went up by 40 per cent. I think the average in Scotland is very much below that. But they are insisting that local authorities put up their rents by 40 per cent. They are going further than that, because if local authorities do not meet what they consider is the rate fund contribution guidelines then they are going to limit the local authorities in respect of what they will be able to build in future. In my day the Secretary of State used to appeal to the local authorities, "For goodness' sake build and build" because of the housing situation in Scotland. Even today in Scotland there are about 67,000 houses without a sink or a water closet. And the housing figures in Scotland have now fallen so that you would have to go back to the year 1925 to get a figure as low.
Coming back to the rent business, in a Written Answer given in another place on 6th March we learn that the local authorities which see the rate fund contribution guidelines at risk because of the rents include Tweeddale, Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn, Skye, Lochalsh, Argyll, Bute, Bearsden and Milngavie. They are not exactly centres of red revolution; not one of them has a labour council. Then, Inverclyde, as well as the traditional urban areas. What we see as a result of the manipulation of the formula is this. I know the Government will say that this formula is designed to get the people out of the distribution of housing grants, and that those who are making a profit on their housing should not be included in the calculations or in the distribution of housing grants. But what I am trying to draw attention to is the fact that the Government themselves can determine the extent to which local authorities are in profit in their housing revenue account. It extends to determining how quickly local authorities will be in a position, notionally, of having made a profit out of housing.
This is a very serious matter indeed for many local authorities in respect of being able to impose on the people concerned rents which are far too high. In Scotland about one quarter of all occupants of local authority houses are in receipt of rate and rent rebates—250,000 of them. I believe it was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Perth and Perthshire, Mr. Walker, who estimated that 50 per cent. of the tenants of local authority houses in the city of Perth, which has had the benefit of Conservative Government for a long time, have to obtain rent rebates, and that 25 per cent. receive a total rent rebate. This is a measure either of poverty or of the fact that the rents are far too high.
It has been calculated that meeting the increased demand for rent rebates resulting from increases in rent to the extent that is wanted by the Government would cost the Government—the English Government probably, because they pay more than a considerable proportion of the money used for rent rebates—some £19 million. This is how Government expenditure arises the more the Government wish this kind of tyrannical measure upon local authorities and compel them to do these things. There is no sense in it. There is fairness in what I suggest.
In these important calculations, where the Government estimate what can reasonably be expected to be credited to the local authority's housing revenue account, the rent element should increase year by year in accordance with the rate of inflation which the Government themselves write into their rate support grant. Next year that figure will be 11 per cent. It would make a very big difference to the position of people who are occupying local authority houses. Rents have been going up in Scotland and they are very high indeed, and there would be a further penalty on these tenants if the local authority cannot go very far because the Government are now reducing the capital made available for housing.
Even at 31 per cent. Glasgow would need to add another 20 per cent. to rates before reaching the taper area and recovering some of the housing capital allowance which will be cut off from the local authority there. Only if the rents were increased by more than 50 per cent. would some of the £10 million or £11 million which the local authority stands to lose be regained.
It is quite monstrous to suggest that in such an area as Glasgow, with all its problems, the Government and Ministers, who pay lip-service to housing, are out to help local authorities, when they are in fact impeding them in this way. It is simple justice that I want. It is not a question of freezing rents; it is a matter of allowing rent increases but limiting those increases to the inflation rate to which the Government themselves limit local authorities under the rate support grant. I beg to move the amendment.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment has the objective of requiring the Secretary of State to estimate the relevant income simply by increasing the income amount estimated by him for the previous year by an amount reflected only by the rate of inflation, and not necessarily having regard to the community's
1180
capacity for making local contributions—which has arisen, for example, from the movement in household earnings. The method of estimating income proposed in the amendment could not be held to be appropriate to the calculation of housing support grant. It is quite clear that Section 1 of the 1978 Act in its existing form, and in the amended form proposed by the Bill, requires the Secretary of State to form a separate judgment for each grant year about income and expenditure which takes full account of all the circumstances known at the time that the judgment is made. The amendment would radically alter the basis of the Secretary of State's responsibility in estimating aggregate income.
It is relevant that in Chapter 6 of the Green Paper of June 1977—the Scottish Housing consultative document, which was published by the previous Administration and propounded a system of housing support grant—paragraphs 13 and 15 set out the principles governing the estimation of relevant income, thus:
"Account will be taken of increased capacity for making local contributions which arise, for example, from the movement in household incomes. The Government consider that local contributions to these costs should keep broadly in line over a period of years, to rises in earnings generally".
Here, "costs" refer to the cost of the provision and maintenance of houses. It is clear that the Green Paper intended that in making assumptions about the level of income the Secretary of State should at any time have regard to what seemed reasonable then, and that no fixed relationship between rents from one year to another or between rents and specific indicators should be assumed. I believe that this flexibility should be retained.
The noble Lord's amendment presents a further difficulty in that it would disturb the calculation of housing support grant without necessarily affecting its amount. The duty of the Secretary of State is to estimate the aggregate amount of income which local authorities could be reasonably expected to receive. As many ratepayers know to their cost, low council house rents mean increased rate fund contributions, and if the estimate of the rental element of aggregate income were depressed, as the amendment might require, it would be reasonable in the light of experience to increase the estimate of rate fund contributions and so to produce the same aggregate as before. In May 1980 council house rents amounted on average to very little more than 50 per cent. of earnings. In my submission it is not reasonable to expect ratepayers and taxpayers to subsidise housing costs to more than 50 per cent. as they did in that year, and it is on this basis that I am unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister did not deny the figures which form the basis of my amendment. He suggested that we should keep in measure with increases in earnings. The Government lay down a rent figure to local authorities. In rate support grant calculations the Government are not going to support any increase of wages or salaries that go beyond 6 per cent. As I have pointed out, rates are bound to go up on that basis, because of the increase that has been allowed in respect of teachers, firemen, local authority workers and others in negotiations in which the main voice has been the voice of the Govern-

1181
ment. Why not accept 6 per cent? I have allowed 11 per cent. for inflation. The Government want to add on another 6 per cent., although within that inflation rate is an element for wages and something else as well. But it is unfair to tie down the local authorities in respect of the support they are going to get in respect of inflation and at the same time tell council tenants that they will have to pay a 40 per cent. increase—which many of them cannot pay. Who pays it?—the ratepayer and the taxpayer. The cost in Scotland has been estimated at £19 million—a strange way of saving money when you have to spend more.
From that point of view, I do not think that there is any justification in this whatsoever. Even that figure of £19 million is not the end of the matter. The other day Linwood closed its doors and that meant another 4,000 people unemployed. I hear today of another firm, the biggest firm in Cumbernauld—and there is an unhealthy balance about the size of the firms in that particular new town—which has already paid off more than 400 people and which yesterday announced that another 300 would be put off. It may be that the local authority will not be worried about that; it may be the new town authority who are worried about the ability to pay rent.
The Minister gives the impression that rents in Scotland have been standing still over the years. This is not true. It is a myth. The rents of local authority houses in Scotland are very much more reasonable than they have been for a long time. I used to get a lot of stick because I was not in favour of keeping rents down in Scotland but all for people paying a reasonable rent. But when it becomes unreasonable it is a different matter; and so many people are seeking rent rebates that it is obviously an indication of how unreasonable rents are. Because of the Government calculation, we are going to have this fictitious position that local authorities will be construed as being in a position of making a notional profit and of getting no housing grant—despite housing built from the time of the 1918 to 1920 Act, the Addison Act, the 1924 Wheatley Act and the 1931 Slum Clearance Act to the Sir Godfrey Collins Act in 1935 when he was going to clear the slums of Scotland in five years. Fifty years later there were more slums than at that time. This is the path of failure properly to deal with Scotland's housing problem.
There is still a housing problem in Scotland. The incidence of this carried through into a later clause will mean that there are areas of Scotland where houses were built in the 1920s and have been paid off. The loans were for 40 years. They now need modernisation. Some of these are pre-war houses and they have been denied modernisation because the Government have slipped back on a promise of continued support for Scotland and its housing problem. What I put forward was a reasonable suggestion and one which I must pursue into the Division lobby.
8.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Maelor, L.

Brockway, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davids of Leek, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Thurso, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mansfield, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Sharples, B.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stamp, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 15:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of fees for planning applications in Scotland
. In section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "or a planning authority in Scotland" shall be deleted;

(b) subsection (2) shall be deleted;

(c) subsection (8) shall be deleted.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this takes us back nine months or so when in an English Act of Parliament, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government decided to include Scotland and apply fees for those who were seeking outline planning permission, be it for a house, a group of houses or a new factory—development of any kind like that. The local authorities were told that they had to charge fees. In an order that was produced the scale of fees was laid down. For the ordinary purpose, depending on the size of the house, outline planning permission could cost about £160 or so; and, indeed, for the actual planning permission, if it was straightforward, it is about £40.

1183
The scale goes up to £1,000 or indeed £2,000. I am sorry I do not have the fees. I had them in my papers earlier but I passed over the requisite order to the Minister of State. But he can take my word for it.
There are also planning appeals, and of course all these are burdens on planning, and planning is an invention of this House to serve the community and to seek to get reasonable proposals in relation to development. It is not something that pleases the developer very much; and to put a charge on the developer, especially in Scotland where they are shouting out for people to build houses, factories and so on, it seems a silly way for a Government that make constant pledges that they are seeking this and that all for the good of Scotland.
I believe that the estimate is that this new planning procedure will bring into Scotland about £2 million. Creating all this fuss and bother for that! It is not something that local authorities wanted; it is not something anybody in Scotland wanted. The English and Welsh may wish to luxuriate in planning fees. I remember that we on this side of the House voted for the whole lot to be wiped out. It was put in in an English Bill, so let us take it out of a Scottish Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord—as he will know, and as no doubt the House will have observed—seeks to delete from the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the enabling power to allow charges to be made for planning applications in Scotland. The system of fees for planning applications is based on the principle that local authority expenditure should in appropriate cases be offset by the charging of reasonable fees for local authority services. The Government consider it appropriate that the cost to local authorities of development control should be offset in this way, so that the burden is shared between the developer and the community.
The scale of fees which has now been embodied in the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 was formulated after full consultation with interested bodies. It is designed to be as simple as possible and to be constructed in such a way that no charge should be set at a level which would deter development. We are carefully monitoring the working of the system of fees for planning applications. Of course, we recognise that the application of this new principle to the development control system may in some cases have unforeseen effects. We therefore intend to consider, once the scheme has been working for a year or so, what improvements might be made. In the meantime, however, it would be inappropriate to seek to reverse in Scotland the principle of charging, which was accepted after full debate both in your Lordships' House and in another place, or to seek to nullify the effect of the detailed scheme of charges which was similarly approved as recently as March this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned charges. I am advised—and no doubt he will confirm that we are right in this particular instance—that no charges are levied for planning appeals. That said, I regret
1184
to say that we cannot recommend this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, that is what I expected. I can assure the noble Lord that it will infuriate a certain person in a certain part of Scotland not unknown to his noble friend who is sitting beside him. I put the amendment down only because this particular person had never heard of it—and what idiots they call the people who wished this upon Scotland! I am not going to mention any names at all. I am going to send this person a copy of Hansard and let him know exactly who wished this upon Scotland and who has not had second thoughts about it. When we reiterate in Scotland that this is how development is aided and assisted by a Tory Government in the interests of freedom and all the rest of it, no one will have any doubt at all about who is to blame.
When the noble Lord said this was fully debated in this House and in another place and they have the records of majorities, he failed to mention that his Government have no majority in Scotland. As far as this House is concerned, it has no status at all in Scotland because it is non-elected; and anybody who can swallow that can swallow anything.
The fact is that I sought to give the Government a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of many of the people who support them and could not believe that a Tory Government, with such distinguished people as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, there watching their interests, would allow this to be done. It was not something which slipped through. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate took a great part in that Bill, as he will remember; so he need not smile away his misfortunes and sorrows at being associated with such characters as sit beside him. So I think I have achieved my object in having that reaffirmation of the Government's determination to visit ill on the people and the development of Scotland, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Public Processions
.—(1) Any person intending to organise or conduct a public procession shall give notice thereof, of the route proposed to be taken, and of the date and time on and at which it is intended that such procession will take place, to the regional or islands council in whose area the procession is to be held, or if it is to be held in the areas of more than one such council, to each such council at their main offices, not less than seven days before the day proposed for such procession.
(2) Any person organising or conducting any public procession—

(a) without notice having been given in pursuance of the preceding subsection; or

(b) otherwise than in accordance with such notice (except where the proposals contained in such notice have been varied by an order under paragraph (a)(ii) of the succeeding subsection);

shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) (a) The said regional or islands council may make—

(i) an order prohibiting any public procession; or

(ii) such order as they consider necessary in the interests of public safety and order on the occasion of any public procession, and any such order may prescribe the route

1185
to be observed by any such procession and the date and time of the procession.

(b) Any person acting in contravention of an order made by a regional or islands council under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) This section shall not apply in relation to a public or ceremonial procession regularly held.
(5) Any person who commits an offence under this section of the Act shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £500 or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be in derogation of the Public Order Act 1936.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is very important new clause and one that will not cost the Government a penny. It is one that will meet a very considerable and important need, particularly in Strathclyde. The power I am seeking is a power that is already possessed by Edinburgh and the Lothians area. It is a power possessed by practically all of what were the burghs in Scotland and which have been continued under the Burgh Police Acts.
The position in Strathclyde—and the main part of it which is concerned is Glasgow—is that if there is a procession that the police consider might lead to public disorder, they cannot ban that procession. They have to ban all processions, except those that can be construed as exceptions under the Public Order Act 1936. The difficulties in Strathclyde started about two years ago when the Troops out of Ireland movement held a march in April and it was opposed, as naturally it would be, by a different faction. There were 19 arrests and there were calls on the police. The trouble is that one procession of that kind leads to another. In 1980 the National Front appeared in Scotland. They proposed a march on the 15th March in Glasgow; and the Anti-Nazi League, the Socialist Workers Party and many others made public the fact that they would disrupt the procession. The Regional Council, with the consent of the Secretary of State, made an order under Section 3(2) of the Public Order Act, banning in Strathclyde Region all public processions. Of course, that Act did not really apply to religious, educational, festive, ceremonial or similar processions in the region, but they had to ban all processions in order to stop one.
Then we had the same thing again, in June. The recent troubles in Ireland led to another procession. There was violence and opposition of an unacceptable level, and indeed 152 arrests were made. After that there was a ban for three months on all processions. Whatever form of words is used in an order under the Public Order Act, some processions which in no way threaten public order are inevitably prohibited and, in the case of the present order which expires on 2nd July next, the Regional Council are now endeavouring to secure the consent of the Secretary of State to alterations in its terms, with a view to allowing certain processions, such as gala days, anti-nuclear processions, or processions dealing with unemployment to go ahead.
The Lord Advocate may perhaps be concerned in these kind of problems, but the point is that such problems would not arise in Edinburgh, in Dundee or Aberdeen. It is because Glasgow and Strathclyde are not covered either by the previous legislation of a fairly local character or covered by the Burgh Police Acts that they are in this position. I think that any reasonable person would agree that the council and the
1186
police have to act at some time in relation to particular processions, and that is all that this power I am seeking here gives them instead of having to ban all processions to deal with one that is going to cause public disorder.
It is sad that we have to resort to this action at all in this day and age after the centuries of tolerance that we have had. I have always been worried that certain troubles would spread into Scotland. They have not; and it says a lot for the communities, particularly in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, that we have had so little trouble. It is greatly to our credit and to the maturity of the people there and of everyone concerned therewith. But there comes a time when it may well be necessary to stop one procession. Why should everybody else have to be similarly troubled about this? I am just looking at the date: 2nd July—that is a relief. I think it is on the 20th July that I have to open a gala day at Darvel, and my wife has to crown a queen. But it might well have been that that could have been stopped, as another procession. The police have shut their eyes in many cases to processions which they know will not cause trouble. But when we consider all that is involved in a small community when they suddenly discover that, because one particular procession had to be banned, all processions are banned and a function of theirs is thus completely disrupted, I think we will appreciate it is time we gave consideration to Strathclyde.
The Government will say: "Wait, we have in our minds a great new Civic Amenities Act". They have had that in their minds since the reconstruction of local authorities in Scotland, in an Act of 1973, eight years ago. When is it coming? At the earliest they would have their powers, I think, at the beginning of 1983. I repeat, that is at the earliest. When I was Secretary of State they were working on these Bills. This is not a great new reforming character: this is gathering together all the by-laws and local public order Acts and making sense of them in terms of the new structure of local government.
We have had to continue these powers from year to year, and if this House of Lords thinks that this Bill has taken a long time, I can assure them that the place will be packed when we deal with all the various Bills about washing-houses and hanging out things in streets in Edinburgh and other such strange things: we will have a field day. We shall have a field week of it. The noble and learned Lord does not know what is coming his way in respect of this. In my day, there were going to be two Bills, but now it is to be one mammoth Bill. So they do bits and pieces here and there and, in the meantime, everything is held up. Would it not be sensible to deal with this problem and get it out of the way? It is an urgent problem. It is urgent from the point of view of Strathclyde. It would be sensible to do it and it would not cost the Government anything.
I have in front of me the Edinburgh Corporation.Order Confirmation Act 1967 and the new clause follows that, virtually word for word. Strathclyde is not asking for any power that is not already there for Edinburgh; and, of course, it is now applicable to the area itself. In the interests of justice, of public order and of common sense, I urge this new clause upon the Government. If they are worried about the fact that this would mean that the Bill would go to another

1187
place, which is something that they do not want, I would point out that it is going there anyway. It will meet no opposition there. Here is a chance for the Minister of State to stamp his authority upon Scottish legislation and say "Yes, this is sensible. This will be done later on, anyway. Why not do it now when it is needed?" My Lords, I beg to move.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment has very considerable implications. I must do justice to the amendment and to the manner in which the noble Lord has moved it. I say that not by way of a threat, but more as a promise that I shall have to take a little time. In moving the inclusion of this new clause, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has raised a matter that, as he said, has, unhappily, been assuming considerable importance and occasioning much concern in certain areas of Scotland in recent months. The problem of controlling public processions in the interests of preserving public order is not an issue that has greatly exercised Scottish local authorities in the past, for until comparatively recently we have been spared the disturbances, the controversy and the violence that have from time to time accompanied processions of one kind or another in various parts of England; mainly, but not exclusively, in London. That happy position has shown signs of changing and of late we have seen several marches, or proposed marches, in Glasgow and elsewhere which have posed a real threat to the maintenance of public order. This is, therefore, a matter of considerable concern to Government and local authorities alike, and it is obviously something which will have to be corrected in due course.
At this somewhat late stage of the Bill's passage, I do not propose to range widely over the philosophy of public demonstrations. There is much that could be said: whether there is, or should be, an absolute right to process, or parade or demonstrate in public; whether this right should give way to the general right not to be impeded or incommoded by those who wish to process; whether there should be a right to limit or ban what is commonly seen as a basic freedom in a democratic society and on what grounds and by whom such a ban should be exercised. These are large and complex questions, and the answers are not at all clear, nor is there general agreement on most of them. I mention them simply to indicate that the subject of the new clause is highly controversial. I come to my first main point. I question whether it is right that, on a matter of such public controversy, a general power of the kind contained in the clause should be conferred on local authorities in Scotland at almost the final stage of this Bill, and without, as far as I know, any specific consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The noble Lord made the point that there are local powers available and I acknowledge that. There are powers available to Scottish local authorities to regulate and control public processions. But those powers are uneven. The position is complex and it varies from place to place. But that unsatisfactory state of affairs is well recognised and the Government are taking steps to rationalise the position, which is what I think
1188
the noble Lord would like to see happen.
Whatever happened when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, we outlined proposals last year to create a new code of civic government in Scotland to replace existing Scottish local legislation, including existing provisions relating to the regulation of public processions. A draft Bill was published last July for discussion, and in that Bill the Secretary of State set out provisions giving regional and island councils powers broadly of the kind proposed in the noble Lord's amendment, but containing a good deal more detail on procedure and on such matters as rights of appeal. These proposals, unlike those which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is now putting forward, were the subject of full discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested bodies in Scotland, and the intention is that they should replace, and not overlap or duplicate, existing provisions.
Then we come to the Public Order Act 1936 which stands, as it were, behind the local powers. These are already available to regional councils throughout Scotland. Unlike the local Acts, which are unspecific about the reasons on which the prohibiting powers may be exercised, the powers in the 1936 Act can be invoked only where serious public disorder is feared. Action under the 1936 Act is triggered off by the professional judgment of the chief constable as to whether any procession or class of procession is likely to occasion serious public disorder, and not by any regard to the nature of the views which the procession is to promote.
These public order provisions are, as I have already indicated, presently available to regional councils and we think it would not be helpful in an already complex situation if, at this stage, there were to be added to them throughout the country, and to the existing local powers, a further layer of powers as proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. If I have any quarrel with him on what he said factually, an order made under the Public Order 1936 Act can be revoked, and has been this year; and although the idea is abroad that the 1936 Act cannot be used selectively, in fact it can, although I acknowledge that it is a very cumbersome piece of legislation.
Last year the Government—I am not talking only about the Scottish Office—put in hand a comprehensive review of the Public Order 1936 Act and related legislation, and the many complexities and problems inherent in this difficult area of legislation were documented in a Green Paper which was issued for discussion in April 1980. There has been a good response to that paper. We are currently considering the many and varied views expressed on it. So it would, I suggest, be singularly unfortunate if, at an advanced stage of this general and controversial matter, your Lordships' House were to step in and pre-empt consideration by conferring these additional powers throughout Scotland, and throughout Scotland alone.
I have spoken mainly so far in terms of Scotland, because the proposed new clause extends to all regional and island councils. But the noble Lord, Lord Ross, made it entirely clear that his real purpose is to provide within the Strathclyde region, and more particularly within Glasgow, powers akin to those available to the local authority in Edinburgh and also elsewhere. In the Government's view, however, to confer these

1189
powers at this stage as proposed is unnecessary, likely to lead to confusion and premature. I say "unnecessary" because, although it is intended to deal with the occasional serious public disorder, powers to do so are already available under the Public Order Act and, as has been demonstrated in Glasgow last year, and very recently, they work perfectly adequately.
I say confusing because, if it were enacted, the power given to regional councils to ban processions would operate alongside those existing powers which are available to local authorities in Scotland. It would be premature because the Government are presently reviewing in depth this complex matter and intend in the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill which is scheduled for introduction later this year to include appropriate provisions relating to public processions which will reflect not only the discussions already held with interested Scottish bodies but also the conclusions of the general review.
As I said earlier, I have sought to avoid dealing with general aspects of this very complex matter. I have confined myself to arguments relating to the proposed clause. I suggest to your Lordships that on an issue such as this which is surrounded by a great deal of controversy it would be unwise to enact this clause giving to local authorities powers which they do not need, which might well lead to confusion and which would pre-empt the outcome of the review in progress. For all these reasons and although I entirely accept the motivation of the noble Lord in moving his amendment, I suggest that this is not the right moment to write it into the law. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he confirm that the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill is the one which was shown in draft to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I have raised this matter even though the Government have it in mind to do something about it. They realise that there is a problem. The hope was that a draft Bill would be introduced this session. Local authorities are now led to believe that it will be introduced next session. If that Bill were introduced next session, power will be in the hands of local authorities to ban particular processions, upon certain conditions, at the earliest by the year 1983. Nobody will stand up in this House and say that the kind of trouble we have had in the past in Scotland will not occur during the remainder of 1981 and throughout 1982. The Minister says that this clause is unnecessary, yet at the same time he says that it is desirable. He says that it is unnecessary because the Public Order Act can be used. But that Act can be used only if, in seeking to ban one particular procession, all processions for a period are banned. There is certainly the question of exemptions or exceptions, but as the Government have themselves admitted, this is a very difficult area in relation to words which may allow one type of procession to escape a seemingly total ban.
The Minister says that there will be confusion because
1190
local authorities already have powers. With due respect, there is already confusion because the Public Order Act 1936 applies to all local authorities, while local authorities in Scotland, as a result of powers given under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, have other powers. The powers which I seek to give, which will be only temporary powers because they will be overtaken by the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, are already in existence. They exist already in the case of Edinburgh and in the case of the other burghs. To suggest that all this trouble relates only to Glasgow and Strathclyde is a bit of a nonsense.
Some people will not like this amendment because it is controversial. Whenever a restriction upon freedom is imposed somebody will not like it. However, when such freedom is used to disturb order and to create not just controversy but strife, the Government are justified in doing what I suggest should be done, if only it be to cover the period 1981 and 1982. I have known Governments plan Bills, sit down in committees and work out priorities: which Bill should come first and which should come next. It is amazing how one year becomes two years, how two years become three, and how three years become virtually a lifetime. I remember that almost sacred on the shelves of St. Andrew's House there was a Slaughterhouses Bill which remained there for years and years. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. It is so reasonable that even I, who seldom put forward anything which is unreasonable, must insist upon going ahead with it and pressing it to a Division.
8.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Maelor, L.

Collison, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Ampthill, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Avon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hooson, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kemsley, V.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

De La Warr, E.

Loudoun, C.

1191

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McFadzean, L.

Stamp, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E.

Margadale, L.

Thurso, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Vickers, B.

Rochdale, V.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 26 [Consent to local authority incurring liability to meet capital expenses etc.]:
9.4 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 24, after ("relates") insert ("and the Secretary of State shall accept liability for any frustrated expenditure incurred by the local authority concerned and claim for compensation that may arise from the action of the Secretary of State in operating the powers in this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 deals with the consent to local authority incurring liability to meet capital expenses. The Government have certainly covered all doors, windows and bolt holes to ensure that the local authorities are completely imprisoned within the confines of this financial straitjacket (I am mixing my metaphors slightly and I hope I may be forgiven) and they are determined to ensure that the local authorities toe the line. In fact, they are taking the power to withdraw the terms of the consent that has already been given for capital expenditure, and I am sure that if some particular contract has got to a certain point the local authority will have incurred considerable liabilities. That may be to architects or to others or it may even be compensation.
If they are in that position as a result of a decision by the Secretary of State I think it is only right that the Secretary of State should accept liability for such frustrated expenditure and repay that to the local authority. Of course, we have had experience of this in Scotland before. If I should stray into the paths of football, I know it is a very touchy subject for the English because their behaviour is so disgraceful as compared with the Scots when we came to Wembley; having almost denied us the right even to be there, we not only got there but we won and we behaved ourselves. Not for the first time we have shown that the poor opinion that some people have of us is quite wrong.
Still on the theme of football, in Glasgow we have a unique stadium, the focus of all opinion and all the events in relation to football, and that is Hampden Park. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will know it well, and he will also know the saga of Hampden Park, but it does not belong to the Scottish Football Association or to the Football League. It belongs to an amateur football club—Queen's Park—which I am glad to say has got out of the third division and earned promotion this year into the second division
1192
—indeed, I should say the first division; it is confusing because the top division in Scotland is called the premier division. Here all cup finals, all internationals, all World Cup games, and even the final of the European Cup have taken place in Hampden Park.
There was a great scheme involving the local authorities, the Government, the clubs, everybody: the go-ahead was given, plans were drawn up; work was virtually started when an edict went forth from No. 10 Downing Street to the effect that Government support should be withdrawn. The question was who was going to pay for the frustrated expenditure. On the belief that one can trust a Tory Government those concerned had started on this scheme and incurred a very considerable amount of expenditure. I am glad to say that eventually the Government saw reason and met the frustrated expenditure, up to a point anyway.
If it is right at that particular point, where contracts had been entered into and work had been done, for compensation to be paid, then it is right that the Government should pay compensation to the local authorities in respect of the expenditures we are considering. Those who say the Government should have the power to intervene in this way, at this time, should face up to the obligation of their support for the Government and support this new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all fascinated to hear from the honourary President of the Scottish Football Association about the doings of Queen's Park, but I hope the fanatics of the game will not care to read the noble Lord's remarks about third and second division. That would go down well North of the Border! Perhaps they might care to read his remarks just as they read those of us on this side of the House, but I think not. The noble Lord's remarks are on the record and we shall look forward to examining them tomorrow with great care.
All of us will sympathise, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Ross, with the concern that a local authority might be led, by the existence of a consent, into incurring some form of liability but then be left with nugatory expenditure when that consent is withdrawn. But I would hope to show that the noble Lord's anxiety is unfounded. I would take it that this is what the noble Lord intends by his phrase "frustrated expenditure"; indeed, I think this follows from the gist of the remarks that he had to make about Hampden Park.
It is as well that the House should consider how expenditure like this could arise. It could not arise simply because the local authority had entered into a binding contract arising from an existing consent, since, as the noble Lord and the House will see, subsection 1B) states expressly that a consent may only be varied or withdrawn where or in so far as a local authority has not incurred by binding contract the liability to which the consent relates. This qualification would seem to rule out the possibility of any claim for compensation being lodged by a contractor against a local authority in consequence of the Secretary of State's action. This is one of the circumstances to which the noble Lord's amendment is addressed.
But of course we do recognise that, quite apart from circumstances where legal obligations are

1193
involved, authorities frequently plan a series of projects where each will depend on another, and indeed good value for initial expenditure may not be obtained until the later stage is completed. To take one example, a playing field might be constructed as part of an environmental rehabilitation scheme but the pavilion or other facilities would certainly be needed before the playing field could be utilised adequately and to the maximum. Such cases as this, and indeed far more complicated cases, are common and are often the subject of particular attention in the financial plans of local authorities. Naturally, in setting allocations, the Scottish Office attempts to provide what are and seem to be sensible solutions within the resources available. But, of course, this kind of case has nothing to do with Clause 26—it is a matter for the normal annual process of setting allocations.
I hope that the House will bear with me if we examine the exact purpose of this particular part of Clause 26. The purpose of the new provision being inserted in Section 94 of the 1973 Act is to enable the Secretary of State to be more flexible in the management of the financial planning system. As part of this an explicit power to withdraw consent is necessary and, indeed, might be used in a variety of circumstances. Often this may be a routine matter where, because of some element of slippage, particular authorities may be unable to use the amounts for which they have consent, or where individual authorities may wish to transfer resources between their various service programmes. In such cases withdrawal of consent and the transfer of resources to another authority or to another programme would improve the management of these finite resources.
The power to withdraw consent is also, of course, necessary to enable the Secretary of State to take whatever action is required to safeguard the cash limit, should there be evidence during the year that expenditure is going faster than had been expected or, indeed, budgeted for. In such circumstances the Secretary of State might wish to restrict new commitments by withdrawing all or part of the amounts of consent which are unused. In those circumstances it cannot be emphasised too strongly that the proviso which is contained in the new paragraph would prevent the Secretary of State from taking any action which would render unlawful expenditure which had been incurred by an authority in good faith under its original consent. I assure your Lordships that the new power will be used as intelligently and responsibly as the existing powers, and in the light of that assurance I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Ross, not to pursue his amendment further.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, pointed out that the clause as it stands excludes the situation where a binding contract, for instance, to put up a building, has been entered into. That will not be affected. The consent cannot be withdrawn in those circumstances. However, my noble friend's amendment refers to expenditure which a local authority may have entered into in good faith as a result of a consent given. I am thinking in the building context which is familiar to me. They may, in fact, have entered into a commitment with an architect. As we
1194
know, the Government have encouraged the employment of outside architects as a way of cutting down on the permanent staff that may be employed by a local authority. That is nothing new. They have been encouraging that for quite a long time.
If, in fact, an arrangement has been made with an architect and then the project has to be abandoned because the consent is withdrawn, would the authority be left to carry the burden of the payments which would have to be made to the architect? There are provisions in architectural commitments, as I think the noble Lord well knows, for standard payments to be made where there is a frustrated commitment. One does not just say to the architect, "Thank you very much. Goodbye". He has to be paid certain sums or certain percentages, depending which stage the job has reached. In those circumstances, would the local authority be left to carry the burden of the job which they were being prevented from carrying through to completion, or would there, without the type of amendment which my noble friend has suggested, be provision for the local authority having this taken into account either in grant or in direct compensation?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I had the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was attempting to lead me—indeed, he may well be leading me—down a slippery slope towards a major trap as far as the particular activities of architects are concerned.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I would not think of it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's word. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will see all the way through the particular paragraph that the local authority may vary consent. I think that the main reply to his query is contained in the words:
"incurred the liability to which the consent relates".
The word "liability" in line 23 would cover all forms of expense which would be appertaining to that particular class of expenditure by the local authority. There might well be other professional fees or other (shall we say?) intangible expenses which would be classified under this lump sum of expenditure, which would be covered by the remarks that I made earlier and, indeed, which are covered by the paragraph. That is as I understand the position. However, if I am wrong, perhaps I may communicate with the noble Lord in writing. As I understand it, the position is that liability covers all the points that he raised, especially in relation to architects.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I hope that the Government are absolutely sure that these words are right and that they themselves are covered. I am more worried about the local authorities and the liabilities into which they enter. It may be preparatory that, having obtained the consent, a certain amount of expenditure is involved before they enter into the contract. I am perfectly sure that every local authority will look at these words very carefully in relation to what the Minister has said.
However, he will appreciate that to withdraw after a consent has been given or to vary the conditions after that has been decided is a very serious matter

1195
indeed. I hope that the Government will not use this power of withdrawal and variation lightly. The noble Lord will know what it has cost in relation to Hampden Park. I know that the Government do not like what they have done in relation to Scottish football to be mentioned or the odium that they have brought upon themselves by that decision. More or less within a week of having given written confirmation of what the Government proposed to do there, they came along and withdrew it. Of course, they discovered that because of what they did, expenditure was frustrated. The same kind of situation could arise with local authorities. Their lawyers will certainly look at this clause with some concern. However, I have no desire to delay the House, important though the matter that we are discussing is in relation to Scottish local government, the burdens that it has to bear and the perplexities and worries that it has as a result of this. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Abolition of advisory committee on conservation and provision of water supplies etc.]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
9.23 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
(" Water escapes
. In the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, after section 10 (which provides for payment of compensation for damage resulting from exercise of powers) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Civil liability of water authorities and water development boards in Scotland for escapes of water.
10(A).—(1) Where an escape of water, however caused, from a communication pipe or main of water authorities or water development boards causes loss or damage the water authorities or water development boards shall be liable, except as otherwise provided in this section, for the loss or damage.
(2) Water authorities or water development boards shall not incur any liability under subsection (1) above if the escape was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered the loss or damage or of any servant agent or contractor of his.
(3) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 shall apply in relation to any loss or damage for which water authorities or water development boards are liable under this section but which is not due to their fault, as if if were due to their fault.
(4) In this section—

(a) "communication pipe" and "main" have the meanings assigned to them by section 109(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980;

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

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

(d) "water authorities" and "water development boards" have the meanings assigned to them by sections 3 and 82(1)(a) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.

(5) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint"").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, last time I moved this amendment was at the Committee stage
1196
and I apologised then for the late hour at which I brought it before your Lordships' Committee. I am afraid that I have to apologise again for moving this amendment at a late hour in your Lordships' House. However, the last time I apologised for having moved it at rather short notice; this time, I have to make no such apology. This amendment was moved in Committee and I withdrew it then because I felt that the Committee had not had sufficient time to consider it and its implications. Now I move it in the knowledge that your Lordships will have had sufficient time to read it and consider its implications.
The intention here is to clarify the law, which is uncertain in this particular area. This is an area which is extremely important to owners of land, houses or other heritable property. Nowadays water mains are so large that a burst could cause danger to buildings or massive damage to land. Section 10(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 states:
"… a district council or water authority or water development board shall make full compensation to any person who has sustained damage by reason of the exercise by them of any of their powers under this Act in relation to a matter as to which he has not himself been in default".
You might think that any reasonable person reading this section of the Act would understand that the private person was indemnified against anything going wrong—a water main bursting or damage of any other sort. But unfortunately it appears that this is not so.
This section of course has never been judicially tested, and, although one might assume that if negligence were proved there would be recourse in common law to a claim against the water authority, counsel for the Scottish Landowners' Federation recently gave an opinion that a water authority was only liable during the exercise of its powers—that is, while a pipe is actually being laid or when a water track is actually being opened—and that there would be no liability in the event of a subsequent burst. It is also quite clear that water authorities in Scotland agree with this opinion. They consider themselves to be not liable should their water main burst and wash away your house; should their water main burst and wash away large chunks of your land or damage your heritable property in any other manner.
This was thought to be an inequitable situation in England. It was thought unfair that the private citizen should be exposed to such danger without any liability falling upon the person or authority who owned and operated the main, and in England a suitable amendment has been agreed to by the Government. In this case I am only asking for parity for Scotland. When I brought this up before I was given two answers by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. He may remember them. He said:
"The question of strict liability was necessary in English law because in England and Wales a test case showed that compensation is payable only in cases of negligence".—[Official Report, 5/5/81; col. 107.]
Now we have a counsel's opinion which says that compensation would only be payable in cases of negligence in Scotland. So we can assume that the situation in Scotland is likely to be the same as that in England. But the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would wish to have some poor chap have his house washed away, or his garage washed away, or his land washed away, then for him to go to the expense of taking a

1197
case so that he could become a test case, then to lose his test case, his money, his house; and then he would be willing to consider legislation. I think that this is a bit hard, and I think I would be not unreasonable in asking the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to think again on that answer.
The other answer he gave me was:
"In this case the imposition of strict liability would have a substantial impact on the expenditure of Scottish local authorities."—[Col. 107.]
Well, are we to assume from that that vast water mains are bursting all over Scotland and that damage so caused would cause enormous claims to fall upon local authorities? Not so. What we are trying to do is to ensure that, if a water main bursts and causes very considerable damage to a small person in a small area, this damage is compensated by somebody who can afford to pay.
There are not an enormous number of water mains that burst all over Scotland every year, but if one water main bursts and washes your house away this is a very important matter to you and one which you can probably with difficulty cope with. It is likely that whatever your insurance is there will be some small print that will make out that you are not liable to get full compensation for it. I feel that if this is equity in England it should be equity in Scotland. It is for that reason that I bring this amendment before you.
It is rumoured that the Government may have some intention, after consultation, of bringing forward legislation similar to this amendment. If they will give me the name of the Bill in which they intend to insert such a provision and an assurance that such legisation will be brought forward, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. If, however, they can mention no such Bill and will not give an assurance that such a provision will be introduced, and if they have no intention of giving cover to the ordinary citizen of Scotland against a burst water main, I shall have no option but to press the amendment. I beg to move.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment, moved eloquently by Lord Thurso, is identical to one he moved at an earlier stage of the Bill. We have therefore discussed it at some length, but I hope he will find my remarks on the subject tonight a little different and that they may satisfy him rather more than he felt was the result of my reply at the earlier stage. The Government's position has never been negative; indeed, we are actively considering how the law in Scotland should be changed, but there are good reasons why action immediately would not be justified, and I shall explain the reasons, albeit briefly.
It is true that as yet there has been no test case in relation to such a disaster, not even in respect of one house, as explained by the noble Viscount, to determine the extent of liability under existing Scottish law. However, we understand, given counsel's opinion about the matter, that it is unlikely that anyone would wish to go to the trouble and expense of such a case. But the Government are certainly not sitting back waiting until a test case appears. On the contrary, we have already opened discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and we intend to take an early decision on the matter. If we decide to legislate,
1198
I undertake that the Government will identify a suitable vehicle next Session. I therefore hope that any worries which may be in the mind of the noble Viscount, or in the minds of any noble Lords, about the need to test existing legislation, can be set aside.
Our consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities must be genuine. It was possible for the Government to act expeditiously for England and Wales, and to accept the spirit of the amendment during the passage of the Water Bill, because English and Welsh water authorities are not local authorities; their practices are often different and they are financed in a different way. Basically, their revenue comes from charges to consumers, as with other statutory undertakers, such as gas and electricity boards.
All in all, a change in the law for England and Wales does not have the same public expenditure implications as a change in our law in Scotland might have. If the existing law in Scotland is causing hardship to farmers in particular—and I would emphasise that this point has not been quantified, although we in the department requested information from the NFU for Scotland and the Scottish Landowners' Federation well over a year ago—there could be serious implications both for public expenditure (albeit small overall, but large for the locality) and for the rates. In this rather thorny field we must make sure that the implications are properly considered before we enact legislation.
The amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is somewhat narrow. Well before the Water Act 1981 was enacted the department was in touch with the convention about the possible need to make similar provisions in our legislation, notably as regards common service pipes for housing, and water for various purposes, such as fire fighting. When the amendment relating to strict liability was introduced it was represented that it, too, ought to be discussed. The Government want to consider all these provisions together and of course to do so as swiftly and as expeditiously as possible.
I am entirely aware that compensation has been the subject of detailed discussions in the past between landowners and both the convention and the department. But the discussions covered a very wide field indeed and were not related to a model for legislation, as is now the case. On the particular problem of compensation for damage to agricultural land, the convention indicated in the discussions that it would not necessarily oppose legislative change. Therefore there should be scope for genuine discussion now and the department intends to proceed on this basis.
I hope that the noble Viscount will be aware—I am sure that your Lordships' House will be interested to know—that consultations are at present in progress with both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the National Farmers' Union. I have instructed officials urgently to carry out further consultation with the Scottish Landowners' Federation in concert with the National Farmers' Union. Unless some difficulty arises from the consultations, I shall confirm the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on this subject, covered in the noble Viscount's amendment, to make in Scots law changes corresponding to those recently agreed for England and Wales. That is a firm commitment.

1199
I am sorry that I cannot give the exact name of the Bill because, as the noble Viscount will know, at present various ideas regarding legislation are in the pipeline. There are varying engines or machines which will carry the legislation sought by the noble Viscount in his amendment. I am afraid that we cannot be in time to act under the Bill which we are discussing this evening. However, I hope that the explanation, and indeed the commitment, that I have been able to give will be of considerable assistance and will satisfy the noble Viscount and the House.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question. I am not quite certain whether I heard him aright when he first spoke about a vehicle in which such provisions might be included in the next Session. I am not certain whether before that he said, "if the Government decide to legislate". But he might have done so, because when he came to what looked like being a very firm assurance of legislation in the next Session he preceded the assurance with the words "unless some obstacle arises", or words to that effect. What kind of obstacle or difficulty might arise which would stop the Government from proceeding with their declared intention of legislating in the next Session?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I would not want to go any further than to say, unless some difficulty arises from the consultations that are under way at the moment. I do not think that the noble Viscount would want us to select any idea which might arise in our minds and suggest that that should be the main stumbling block to enacting the legislation. We do not think that there will be any major difficulty, but we still have to allow for the possibility of some major difficulty arising in the consultations. However, I think that I have given a very firm commitment that we intend to meet the intention behind the amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will allow me, may I complete this point? I think that was helpful, because I believe that in the first instance the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said "unless some difficulty arises", and in his second answer he said "unless some major difficulty arises". That, I think, puts a slightly different complexion on it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on the same point (if I can still be intervening in the noble Lord's speech) I would just ask whether there are any means whereby the noble Lord can confirm that, in relation to the kind of difficulty which he said might arise—he said, "unless some difficulty arises"—the Government themselves will not precipitate one of those difficulties?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly the Government do not do things of this ilk. I am totally lost as to what the noble Lord is seeking, but certainly not.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords,
"If ifs and ands were pots and pans
There'd be no work for the tinkers"—
or, in this case, for plumbers. I really do not honestly know what sort of an answer I have received from the noble Lord. He says that the Government are not
1200
likely to put any obstacle in the way of legislation. He says that the matter has been fully discussed with COSLA and that they have said that they see no reason why farmers should not be compensated. If farmers might be compensated, why not a poor little householder; why not a crofter? He said that there are still many matters to be discussed, and that discussions have been going on for a long time. I really do not honestly know what sort of an answer I have.
I should like to invite the House to state what it thinks about the matter, because the Government can always knock this out again at Third Reading if they can come with a better story. I think that we ought to ask noble Lords, having heard this discussion, whether indeed they think there is any point at all in waiting for legislation which may or may not eventuate. We have not been given the name of any measure which is likely to carry this kind of legislation; we have not been given any firm commitment that it will go into any one measure or another. I feel that in this particular instance I should ask your Lordships' House to give a verdict in the matter.
9.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Plant, L.

Bishopston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hampton, L.

Stamp, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Winstanley, L.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kemsley, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bradford, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Rochdale, V.

De La Warr, E.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sharples, B.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sudeley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Vickers, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
9.50 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
"Access Officers
. Each local authority shall designate one of its officers to be the Access Officer who shall act as a liaison officer and coordinator in the area of that authority on all matters involving access for disabled people to buildings and other facilities and the application of the British Standards institution's Code of Practice, Access for the Disabled to Buildings', BS 5810: 1979, or such other code or codes as the Secretary of State may prescribe."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment which is one of the recommendations of the Silver Jubilee Committee on aspects of concern for the disabled, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Government amendment which we shall be considering shortly is concerned only with new buildings. There are of course very many more existing buildings which disabled people would like to use if they were accessible to them. One example came to my hand only today, in the May issue of the news magazine concerning the International Year of the Disabled. This reports the conference of the National Council of Women held in Edinburgh which was attended by some 350 women from all over the country. I quote:
"No woman present could fail to notice the problems of the disabled delegates coping with the access to Edinburgh University's tine modern common hall or the highly polished Gents with no hand rails".
We believe that every local authority should designate one access officer. He could act as a focal point for owners and developers who are seeking information and guidance on how to improve access to their buildings. He could also be in close touch with local action committees who do good work year in year out, bringing good-tempered, gentle, steady pressure on owners of existing buildings to make them accessible to disabled people. We believe that the right man in this job could achieve a lot as time goes on. I know that many local authorities in Scotland already have designated one of their officers as access officer. We believe all of them should do so; and not only in Scotland, but in England and Wales, too. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend's amendment. I think it would be helpful to have a known person to whom all general inquiries on access could be channelled. I should like to underline what my noble friend said about the access action groups which cover many types of disability, and not just the wheelchair but the blind and the ambulant disabled. They are necessary to keep a watchful eye open and to improve access at the grass roots. These groups cannot operate in isolation. They must co-operate with the local authorities. Therefore, this access liaison officer would be an essential and valuable member of any access action group.
Almost every local authority in Scotland has designated an access officer; so that it is not asking too much. I think it will be helpful to have it in the Bill to ensure that the few remaining authorities do likewise. I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support this amendment. Your Lordships will know, I am sure, that the needs of disabled people are very varied according to their many different disabilities, and they need keeping up to date with changing circumstances. An access officer seems to be a necessary person to see that all their needs are catered for. It is most frustrating to go into a community hall, as f did last week, to find two newly-adapted lavatories for the disabled—one for men and one for women, well signed with a wheelchair sign—and to be dismayed to see that both have solid fixed rails on either side, thus preventing anyone in a wheelchair from using them. This is typical of the ambulant disabled being catered for and not those in wheelchairs. To give access to both, a movable rail should have been provided and not a fixed one. With the British Standards Institution's code of practice, Access for the Disabled to Buildings (BS5810: 1979), I hope that this sort of thing will not continue to happen. An access officer would, I am sure, be a most helpful and useful member of a local authority team.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. There is only one point I wish to make in regard to it. Your Lordships may feel it is a very important point. ft arises on subsection (2) which says:
"This section shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
By not fixing an appointed day for a very long time to come—perhaps years ahead—the purpose of this amendment could be completely frustrated. I am sure that your Lordships will feel that in this International Year of Disabled People the Government would wish to make the appointed day within that year. This is not going to be a very expensive way of helping our country to play its part in the International Year of Disabled People. Therefore one would hope for an undertaking from the Government in—as hope they may—accepting this amendment that they will say that the appointed day will come within this year, 1981.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it may help the Government to make up their minds if I were to tell them something of my own experiences in this matter. Even when everybody concerned is doing their best to provide access, it is sometimes difficult to do so. I was recently involved in adding a new public bar and games room to a small village pub in Halkirk. We decided from the start that there had to be access for people in wheelchairs. The architect was duly informed to design the building so that people in wheelchairs could use it. It was easy enough to get access from the street without steps, and to get up to another level we had a ramp. We also had a beautiful plan on paper for the toilets. I was there while the framing was being erected. I saw a nice large door frame for the toilet for the disabled. However, the door going into the lobby area where all the toilets met was of an ordinary size. Clearly, a disabled person would have to dismantle their wheelchair in

1203
order to get it through that door. They would then have to put it together again and enter the "loo". I pointed this out to the architect and builder and this was put right.
I came back at a later stage when the partition walls were up. I looked at the disabled people's toilet and said: "How does the disabled person turn round?" Nobody had thought of that. When they looked at the plan and checked the specification that they worked to they found they had constructed a toilet for an ambulatory disabled person; in other words, a person on crutches. Somebody in a wheelchair would have been able to enter because the door was wide enough, but all they could have done was to sit there and look at the "loo". That would not have done them very much good! It did far more good to take space from the ladies' toilet next door and use that in the disabled people's toilet.
That kind of thing occurs because there is not enough know-how. It would be immensely helpful if within the local authority there were people to whom anybody willing to help in this area could go for advice on these matters.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the comments that have been made. May I draw attention to the fact that, as we all know, the blind make up a very large proportion of the people with disability in our country. I should like to ask the Minister to be quite certain that if officers are to be appointed, wherever they are appointed they should know every facet—and there are so many—of disability, including blindness. We have here today so many excellent speakers; but I should like to speak up on behalf of the blind.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I appreciate very much the purpose behind this new clause and certainly there is an advantage in local authorities co-ordinating their policies and actions on the question of access for the disabled. But there are two main arguments against making it a statutory requirement to appoint access officers. First, it runs against current Scottish local government legislation which in general deliberately leaves the authorities themselves to determine the pattern and structure of their organisation in the light of their particular circumstances and needs. Secondly, in the present financial climate we think it would be wrong to impose on local authorities the requirement to designate staff as access officers because of the possible expenditure implications, and the designation of a statutory access officer may not in any case be the best means of promoting the needs of the disabled.
Having said that, it is of course already open to local authorities to make such appointments where they consider that to do so would be a good way of helping the disabled in their area. The convention accepted a recommendation from the Access Committee of the Scottish Council on Disabilities that local authorities should consider the appointment of access officers and commended it to individual local authorities at
1204
the end of last year. We understand that many local authorities have already acted on the recommendation, and it seemed to the Government best to proceed on this basis.
It is better, I feel, that authorities should make such appointments on a voluntary basis rather than be forced into the position of designating an official as "access officer". As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has said, most local authorities if not all have accepted the recommendation of the Access Committee of the Scottish Council on Disabilities and have already appointed access officers.
In the circumstances, it seems to us that this flexible approach is the best way forward since it leaves authorities to take account of the circumstances in their areas and then decide what is most appropriate. We are going to come a very long way in this Bill from when it first saw the light of day in the other place, and I would hope that in the particular circumstances which I have outlined in regard to this amendment it would be possible for my noble friends and those who have subscribed to this amendment to withdraw their new clause.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene at this stage on this particular amendment, but, having listened with great interest to everything that has been said in the debate, I feel compelled to intervene, and for this reason: no one has spoken against the amendment at all. All who have spoken have spoken in favour of it. Two reasons have been advanced in answer to it. The first is that it is against the current approach of Government to Scottish local government problems. I find that a quite astonishing proposition in the light of the various powers which different Governments have taken to control Scottish local government operations since 1966. I must say I find this, the first of the two answers of the Government to this amendment, a little startling and certainly unconvincing.
The second head of the Government's answer thought even more startlingly unconvincing and even worse. That is the suggestion that somehow or other it has expenditure implications. I find it quite impossible to believe that in any local authority, even the busiest, there is not a suitably appointed officer to discharge the kind of functions envisaged here. Of course, there is a lot to be said for the voluntary principle.
All I rise to say, having listened to the debate on the matter, is that I should have thought, on balance, there was no doubt at all as to what, on the basis of the arguments to which we have listened, the answer of the House should be. But, of course, it is not for me to say and I shall quite understand if those who have put down this amendment prefer to withdraw it. I can see the force of leaving it to the decision of the people on the spot, and it is for others to decide whether they will withdraw the amendment. But having listened to the debate, I thought I should at least say what I have said.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, when I heard my noble friend talk about a flexible approach, I knew that

1205
this was damning with faint praise. We have been given no assurance that these officers will be appointed; we have merely been told that they can be appointed—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I very much hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but if he had been listening he would have heard two speakers in this debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and me—say that, in fact, in nearly all cases they have been appointed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the whole point is whether it is compulsory and they all have them. It is a question of whether they ought to have them or whether they may have them. That is the point. We are told that it is a question of cost, when the job can be doubled up with another. Then we are told that this is against the Scottish custom. All I say is "fiddlesticks." I think that my noble friend's answer is really shameful. It is not for me to advise others, but I hope that they will press the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I did not think that I would require to venture a word at all on this subject. I really thought that the Government would have accepted this amendment. If noble Lords who are now present had been here earlier, they would have heard exactly the kind of attitude that the Government have been taking towards local authorities and local authorities' expenditure. This is a Scottish Bill, although I think most of the House is now composed of people who are, generally speaking, less interested in Scotland. But they see an opportunity within the Bill that opens up the whole field of local authority work to do something in respect of the disabled.
Scottish local authorities, particularly the main ones, may be way ahead of this clause and may already have done the appointing. But I can remember when we started work under the Social Work (Scotland) Act in 1968 how many local authorities there were in Scotland who were very proud of what they were doing, and who gave the impression that they were doing so much in respect of personal social services. But when we came down to it, we discovered that they were doing virtually nothing at all. We made them appoint officers; so much so that the appointment of certain officers was under the direct control of the Scottish Office. It was not left to the voluntary wishes of local authorities as to whether they would appoint social work directors. In fact, all those noble Lords who are so interested in this Bill will realise that, having had so many years of it, the appointments of directors of social work do not now have to be approved by the Secretary of State, but they still have to be appointed.
We now appreciate the importance of this to a section of our community, which cannot do things that we take for granted, and cannot go to places which are open to a great many people; not in one area but in every area. I should have liked to hear from the Minister how many local authorities concerned have actually appointed. I see no reason at all why we should not put this into the Bill. As regards cost, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilson of Langside is quite right. The amendment does not say that they must
1206
appoint a new officer. It says that they must designate one officer to be the access officer. That is not going to cost all that much; it may not cost anything at all. However, it will achieve a considerable improvement in the facilities available to the disabled.
The point was rightly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, that we must not think of only one section of the disabled. A problem can be solved for one section and then we discover others about whom we have forgotten. The application of a lively mind is required to ensure that all these types of disablement are covered. That is why it is very important that one officer in each local authority should be designated for this purpose. I support the amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am inclined to think that in this case the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has got it right. The word is "designate"; it is not "appoint". My noble friend may have used the word "appoint". It is a word which is often used as a synonym for "designate", but if one wishes to be accurate it is just as well to use the right word. A case has been made out for my noble friend to take back this point and look at it again.
If we consider what happens in industry, we find that constantly officers are being designated as safety officers and so on. This does not mean that somebody is being appointed specially to do this job and nothing else. It seems to me that this point was being argued by the Government on the basis of an officer having to be appointed at extra expense to do nothing else. I wonder whether my noble friend would look again at the matter in that light.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, if I may dare presume to poke my English nose into this wholly Scottish matter, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just said. I hope very much that the noble Earl will agree to reconsider the matter. If he is not prepared to do so, I hope that the sponsors of the amendment will not withdraw it. I think that it should be pressed.
Since this is a Scottish matter, perhaps I should turn straight away to the money side of it. What the noble Lord has said is entirely right. At the moment we have in England, Wales and Scotland a system of generic social workers under which all social workers employed by local government are regarded as universal geniuses who can take over different functions. No longer do we have children's officers, mental health officers and so on. We have generic social workers.
This is merely a requirement to designate one person to have responsibility for access. If anybody says that this will cost extra money, it cannot be so. There is no reason why it should cost extra money. That side of the argument is one which we should reject. This will involve minimal interference with the freedom and autonomy of local government, be it in Scotland or elsewhere. The requirement would be to designate one existing officer to do something which the noble Earl has admitted needs doing and ought to be done. He says that it is now being done by most local authorities. Surely it is the business of Parliament as a

1207
whole to make sure that if something is necessary it is done everywhere, not just in one or two places which choose to do it. I hope that the noble Earl will think again about this matter. If he does not, I hope that the sponsors of the amendment will press it.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, in view of the strong feelings which have been expressed on all sides of the House, I hope that the Government will agree to look again at the matter. If the noble Earl will agree to do so, I shall be very pleased to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that those who have followed the proceedings this evening will have seen that this is a starred amendment on the Marshalled List. This means that the Government have had very little notice of it.
I am impressed, as always, by the wealth of expertise and the obviously very strong feelings which have been expressed. It would be wrong of me in the circumstances to refuse to think again, although we are getting to a very late stage of a Bill which has almost passed through both Houses of Parliament. I will take it away, but I do not think it would be proper for me to give any commitment to do other than to consult and to reflect. I think that is what my noble friend would like me to do; that is what I undertake to do and I will communicate with him, at least, when and if I may come to any conclusion.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Planning applications and consideration of the needs of the disabled]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("In determining any") and insert ("When granting an").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. As the clause is drafted at present planning authorities would have to ensure that developers were aware of their duty under the 1970 Act even where they had decided to refuse the application for planning permission. The amendment makes it clear that planning authorities are to be required to draw the attention of developers to their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 only in cases where it is their intention to grant planning permission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 16, line 7, after ("4") insert (", 5 and 7").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which removes from Clause 36 an unnecessary reference to Section 6 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That section in
1208
its application to Scotland relates to the consideration of the needs of the disabled in the special circumstances in which the owner of a building is ordered to provide sanitary conveniences. This duty does not, however, apply to the generality of developers who are providing buildings to which the public are to have access and it is therefore unnecessary to draw their attention to it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 12, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes from Clause 36 the references to the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings and the Secretary of State's power to substitute a reference to any subsequent code of practice. One of the effects of the amendment to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which has been accepted this evening would be to incorporate in the 1970 Act provisions similar to those to be removed from Clause 36. Thus, when a planning authority draws the attention of a developer to his duties under the 1970 Act he will be made aware of the existence of the code of practice. There is therefore no need to make specific provision in Clause 36 for the attention of developers to be drawn separately to the code of practice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 16, line 14, at end insert ("These factors shall be material considerations in terms of subsection (1) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if my reading of the Bill is correct, I think we have just wiped out the lines to which my amendment refers.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
10.19 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 36, insert the following clause:
("Further provision as regards the needs of the Disabled
.—(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(2), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs of the disabled)—

(a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State is satisfied, after carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such provision should be made.".

(2) After the said section 4(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision" in relation to any case means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British

1209
Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.".
(3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)—
"Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section.";
and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(2A), 8(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.
(4) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted "—(a)" and at the end there shall be added the words "; or
(b) amend the definition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the full debate which we had when last we considered this Bill on the question of improving the existing legislation to ensure that the needs of disabled people are adequately considered and appropriate provision made for them in buildings to which the public are to have access. On that occasion I said I was impressed by the strength of feeling on the matter and agreed, despite the difficulties inherent in the various amendments under consideration, to consult my colleagues with a view to seeing what could be done.
We have considered the whole question very carefully and have concluded that it would be appropriate in this International Year of Disabled People for further provision to be made to ensure that those special needs are taken into consideration by those providing buildings to which the public are to have access. We have therefore decided that, subject to some drafting changes, we should accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, which, as your Lordships will recall, met with widespread approval in our Committee. It is right that I should say that my noble friend was good enough to tell me that he had unfortunately to leave the House before these amendments were called, but that he is happy that the Government have adopted this course.
Your Lordships will also, no doubt, be pleased to know that it is the Government's intention that similar provision should be extended to the rest of the country by means of an amendment to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House. I hope that the House will therefore be able to accept the new clause, together with our Clause 36 and our proposed circular to planning authorities, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, and these measures will represent, we believe, a significant step forward in ensuring that proper consideration is given to the needs of the disabled in buildings to which the public are to have access.
Details of the procedure to be followed and the identification of the body which will adjudicate cases where the developer does not propose to make appropriate provision will require to be considered carefully. It is our intention to undertake wide-ranging consultation with interested parties before determining the content of the regulations which the new clause gives my right honourable friend power to make.
My noble friend Lord Renton raised the matter of the appointed day. What I have to say here is that there is a need to consult widely with all interests, and therefore I cannot give a commitment tonight to
1210
have the provision come into effect at any particular time. However, I do assure your Lordships that there will be no avoidable delay in working out the procedures that will apply. In these circumstances, I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House and beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I just very briefly thank my noble friend for his reference just now to what I said earlier, and apologise to your Lordships for having spoken to Amendment No. 20 which had not been moved, nevertheless making a point which has proved to be relevant to Amendment No. 26 which my noble friend Lord Mansfield has just moved. If I have understood my noble friend correctly, it seems that there is every intention, as well as hope, on the Government's part that this power will be used by the Government in this International Year of Disabled People. I do hope that is so, because, as I said earlier, it would be a pity to miss this opportunity of achieving at least that amount in this year.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell that I know how very much he appreciates the steps that my noble friend has taken. I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to my noble friend for having taken this initiative, and indeed for influencing his colleagues to ensure that it extends to the whole country.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to say tonight that I am Scottish. Having been born and bred in Scotland and having spent half my life there, I can tell your Lordships that the Scots have a pioneering and thrifty instinct. My noble friends who are disabled know only too well from bitter experience how difficult it is to cope with everyday life if they cannot get into a building; and once they have got in they must have suitable facilities. It is not surprising that we have had to turn to Scotland to persuade the Government that this clause was in everyone's interest. To have access planned in the initial stage without doubt saves money, energy and time. Buildings which are suitable for the disabled are suitable for everyone.
I welcome Lord Mansfield's amendment. I thank the Government and especially the Scottish Office for doing what England seemed slow to admit was necessary. I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister just a few questions. Who will be the prescribed body? Will it be the local authority responsible for building regulations? Who will check on the facilities for disabled people? Will that be done at the same time as all the other regulations?
It is important that mistakes are not made. As the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings will be being used mistakes should not be made. If, however, the developer disagrees with the prescribed body, he will presumably be allowed to appeal against its decision. Will that appeal be, in the first place, to the Secretary of State or to the courts? If a developer does not provide the facilities required, what sanctions will the prescribed body have? Will they be identical to those under normal building regulations?
Finally, if an individual citizen or a local association for the disabled is unhappy with the prescribed body's

1211
opinion of what is reasonable and practicable, or is not satisfied that it has exercised their powers in an appropriate fashion, might they have any redress in the courts? Presumably, if the prescribed body takes no action at all, then the developer must make appropriate provisions. If he does not, is it up to an aggrieved individual to sue him or the prescribed body?
I am sure that there will be many people outside your Lordships' House who will also welcome this clause. Much has been done in the last 10 years by good authorities and caring people. But many mistakes have also been made and it is so important that what will be done in the future will be done correctly. Now when it becomes common practice to include the needs of the disabled people at the planning stage they will feel part of society rather than outcasts of an able bodied world. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this legislation will be brought into force during this International Year of the Disabled.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, the proposed new clause by the Government seems to cover all the points made in Lord Campbell of Croy's amendment and I should like to thank the Minister for all the work that he has done on it, and the Scottish Office in general who have been very courteous and most helpful. I am delighted to learn that they are going to make similar provision in the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill.
I should like to make two points. The first has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Earl and it concerns Amendment No. 28 dealing with when the new clause will come into force. I fully realise that the Government need time to decide which body and what procedures will be prescribed. But I remember only too well that a similar thing happened when there was a Government amendment to the Education Act 1976 which ensured that handicapped children would be educated where possible in ordinary rather than in special schools. That clause was to come into force on a date appointed by the Secretary of State, and the Minister introducing it said, "I assure the House that this is not a prescription for delay". Four years later it had never been brought into force and it was repealed in the Education Act 1980. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Earl can tell us—I know that he has given some indication—that there will only be a delay of, say, a maximum of three months while the procedure is decided upon before the new clause is enforced. Perhaps also he will consult bodies such as the Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People and the Commission on Restrictions Against Disabled People (CORAD) before coming to any decision.
My second point is not really to do with this clause, but as this is Report stage I had better get it in now. At the Committee stage the noble Earl said that the Government intended to issue a circular to make it clear that planning authorities have the power to impose conditions on planning permissions relating to provision for the disabled. I imagine that the proposed new clause does not, in fact, preclude the issue of such a circular. I see that the noble Earl is nodding.
1212
In a letter of 7th May to Mr. Peter Large, the chairman of CORAD, Mr. Giles Shaw, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, said:
"As you point out, planning is not concerned with the internal design of buildings nor with the provision of arrangement of facilities inside buildings. It would, therefore, normally be outside a planning authority's powers to become involved in issues such as the width of corridors or provision of wheelchair-accessible lavatories".
Paragraph 3 of the draft circular, which the noble Earl has put in the Library, says much the same thing; that planning relates to access to but not within buildings. This is why it is very important to have this new clause enforced as soon as possible.
However, it is very true that access around buildings and between buildings is also very important. For example, you can have a beautiful sports hall with all the facilities, and then the car park may be separated from it by steps. How do you get into it? In a pedestrianised shopping centre there may be obstacles that impede access between the buildings. Therefore, I think that it would be excellent if the circular could make it clear that planning consent could be refused if there was no provision for access from the surrounding area, such as a car park or between the buildings, and from the car park to the entrance of the building in question. I hope that the noble Earl will consider this and again consult organisations for the disabled on this matter.
Apart from the concern as to when the proposed new clause will be enforced, I am very grateful to the noble Earl and, indeed, to all noble Lords on every side of the House who have supported and worked so hard and, indeed, pressurised so effectively. I am very glad to support this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the noble Earl's answers to the very pertinent questions put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). These are important questions. But in the meantime, as one who supported the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others who raised this matter in Committee, it would be churlish if I did not, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, express our indebtedness to the noble Earl for what he has done regarding this new clause, which is very important, and also for the very important assurance that he gave us with regard to steps which will be taken, concerning another measure which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House. We, too, on these Benches would like to say to the noble Earl how very grateful we are for the steps that he has now taken.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should also like to join in thanking the Government. Perhaps I could remind the House that our original amendment, on which this is based, was designed to create barrier-free access to new public buildings in order to put some teeth into the 1970 Act, which was a very good Act but there was no means of enforcing it. We hope that by putting the onus on the developer to show that it is not reasonable or practicable to provide access, this new amendment will just achieve that.
We are delighted that the Government have agreed to this. We are even more delighted that it is to be

1213
extended to England and Wales. I, too, should like to thank the Minister and all in the Government who must have been working very hard behind the scenes to bring forward this amendment.
I should just like to mention the circular which the Minister has deposited in the Library. With all respect, I can only imagine that this must have been drafted before the new Government amendment was put forward. I very much hope that there will be a redraft of it and that the Minister will undertake to consult with the organisations for disabled people. I very much hope that he will produce a rather different circular. With those words, I should like to join in thanking the Minister.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, in welcoming this amendment from these Benches, I would only say that, in order to support the view that this amendment is a significant step forward in the context of the needs of the disabled, there is nothing that I can add to what has already been said from all sides of the House, in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. All of us are greatly indebted to the noble Earl for his efforts.
It would perhaps be a little churlish—particularly at this time of night—if I said that, when I heard him at the outset refer to the difficulties which were inherent in the earlier amendments, I saw, and many of us saw, no inherent difficulties in any of these amendments. There were a few little technical difficulties. I am bound to say, and I hope that it does not add a churlish note to the general welcome I gave and which everyone has given to this amendment, that I thought I detected every now and then—and I detected when some of us introduced the earlier amendments bearing upon this issue—a tendency (and I have said this before, but I make no apology for saying it again) on the part of Ministers to find a problem for every solution. But here I am happy to say that we seem to have found what I think for the time being will be a final solution.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that the Government have shown themselves very responsive indeed to the powerful pressure brought to bear on Committee stage. The Government did the right thing and said that they would look at it again. If they had not given that assurance I think they would have lost the Division and it would have been amended. But the Government have used the time well. The Minister not only looked at it again but has produced a reasonable set of amendments, and I am grateful for that.
I take great pleasure in it because Clause 36 was introduced in another place by a Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. John Home Robertson. He had hoped that the Government would go further there, and that is why I had further amendments down in relation to that. But so far we have done very well indeed, and the Government have to be congratulated (a) on what they have done and (b) on their good sense in appreciating and being responsive to the mood of the House itself. I only hope that the noble Earl's promise to look again at the question of the designation of an access officer will bear the same kind of fruit.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords and indeed noble Baronesses for their welcome to this new clause. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, that nobody is churlish with more charm than he. A lot of the questions that have been asked of me will be the subject of the wide-ranging consultations with all manner of interested parties that we shall have before my right honourable friend comes to determine the content and form of the regulations which will be published in due course. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me five questions. Most of them will be the subject of these consultations, but what I shall do in respect of both her questions and those that others have asked me is to look at the Official Report, and if their questions are not going to be the subject of the consultation procedure then I shall get in touch with them, I hope reasonably speedily, and possibly even before the Third Reading.
It is a matter about which I only accept congratulation on behalf of the Government, who have taken a view which is going to extend not only in Scotland but, as we now know, in England and Wales as well in a matter which is going to come before your Lordships shortly. It is on that basis that I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for what they have said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
10.40 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 17, line 20, leave out ("section 6(7) of the 1956 Act or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 35, as the two are closely linked. These are minor technical changes which will remove redundant entries from Schedule 4 and Clause 42. They are rendered necessary by a change to Clause 4 effected in the other place. The entry in Schedule 4 and the reference in Clause 42 which these amendments seek to delete were consequential on Clause 4 as originally drafted, but are now no longer necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("Section 29") and insert ("Sections 29 and (Further provision as regards the needs of the Disabled)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 26. It reflects subsection (2) of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and provides that the new clause will come into force on a date appointed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Relaxation of controls over local and other authorities]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 20, line 37, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was motivated by my recollection of certain incidents that took place when I was Secretary of State in

1215
respect of certain aspects of police allowances, but it would not be fair at this hour to go into such matters of my personal curiosities, and accordingly I will not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 30, line 48, at end insert—
("New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 16)
In Schedule 2 (Constitution and proceedings of development corporations), at end of paragraph 9 insert—
"9A. For the purpose of securing the admission, so far as is practicable, of the public including the press, to all meetings of Development Corporations themselves, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall have effect.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that the public gain admission to meetings of the new town development corporations, and we have them in Cumbernauld, East Kilbride, Livingstone and Glenrothes in Scotland. Some feeling has been expressed by the public that they are shut out of what is happening in their own town. Originally, pleasant noises about the amendment were made by the Government, but then something happened and on Report in another place they were less happy about it. Whether they were nobbled by the new town authorities and the powerful influences therein, I know not. As we afford people the opportunity to attend district, region and similar meetings, it is common justice that they and the press should be allowed to attend meetings of the development corporations. What made the Government change their mind over this, having at first indicated they would incorporate such an amendment in the Bill? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as was explained in another place when the same proposal was put forward, it has been given very careful consideration because it is recognised that development corporations are public bodies spending large amounts of the taxpayers' money. However, after the most careful consideration, my right honourable friend, having met the chairmen of the development corporations on 13th March, wrote to them to say that he did not propose to direct them to open their meetings to the press and public as he recognised that the bulk of their business was of a commercial confidential nature and that there was a serious risk that fears of breach of this confidentiality might detract from the attractiveness of the new towns, especially in their important role of creating employment opportunities.
I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate, and indeed accept, that there is a difference between an elected authority, such as a district or regional council, and a new town development corporation. The former consists of elected representatives who attend under a direct mandate from the electors, while members of the corporations are nominated by my right honourable friend and are largely instrumental in carrying out his policies. The point about openness of government is well recognised and the new town
1216
chairmen are also well aware of the principle. Since the Secretary of State met them on 13th March some of them, I know, have been giving consideration to meeting the press on a regular basis, and it is hoped that all five corporations will in fact do so.
The noble Lord may also be aware that the National Union of Journalists has been actively canvassing on this matter both before and after the meeting on 13th March, and that the Government's view was outlined in an article which was placed in the press, so that the Government's views could be more widely known. Should the noble Lord wish a copy of the article (which in fact took the form of a letter from my right honourable friend to a fellow Member of Parliament) I shall be glad to make the necessary arrangements.
For the reasons that I have given we do not think that it is appropriate, nor indeed desirable, that new town corporations should be treated in the same way as elected local authorities, and thus we cannot see our way to meeting the wishes of the noble Lord in this matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I can appreciate the importance of keeping commercial negotiations confidential, but I think that that point could have been got over by means of a slight change in respect of the amendment itself. I know that the Government had very considerable sympathy with this point, but if what we have been told is the Minister's view about it, I shall not divide the House this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
Page 34, leave out from beginning of line 2 to ("(5)") in line 6.
Page 34, line 8, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("for") in line 11.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 together. These are technical amendments, consequential on the amendment to Clause 36 deleting the power in that clause to amend the definition of the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings. They remove the provisions which would have incorporated references to the deleted Section 26(4B) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in Section 273 of the 1972 Act, which contains references to the powers which are to be exercisable by statutory instrument and to the procedures to which the statutory instruments are to be subject. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert—
(".In section 49 (Provisions supplementary to sections 45 to 48) at the end of subsection (2)(a) there shall be added the words: "to which a member has been appointed or otherwise authorised by the body to attend".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of the attendance of councillors at meetings. A situation arose in a part of Scotland where, after the election of a district council, the ruling party,

1217
which was the Labour Party, took over all committees. I do not at all approve of that; I think it is most inadvisable and is bound to cause trouble. The other members of the council, who felt themselves denied, decided that they would attend the committee meetings as observers. There was nothing to stop that. But they went a little beyond that. They then claimed attendance allowance in respect of such meetings, and I do not think that anyone can justify that.
I gather that it is a rather moot point as to whether they are entitled as councillors/observers to go to meetings of the committees and then claim allowances in respect of their attendance there. They have not been authorised to go; they are not members of the committee. While I understand why they went, I cannot feel that they were justified in claiming attendance allowance for so doing. The chief executive of that area, or the finance officer, refused to pay the allowance, and I believe that at the moment the matter is being settled at law.
I think the Government's feeling about it was exactly the same as mine, but in another place it was suggested, "Well, the matter is going to be settled; we are going to get a judgment, so we might as well wait for that"—and they expected that judgment to have been delivered by this time. My understanding is that there is going to be no settlement of this issue in the courts until about the end of October at the earliest, after this Bill is passed. I think we are far better to apply our common sense and make the change proposed in this amendment, to say that there shall be added the words,
"to which a member has been appointed or otherwise authorised by the body to attend";
in other words, attending officially in respect of the actions which are being taken. That will legalise the matter and put things in the right position, and not leave it to the whim of the individual councillor who is not a member of the committee just to go along, not just to hear but then to claim payment for that attendance which he has decided upon for himself.
That is the purpose of the amendment and that is the history of the amendment. It is sickening and sad, I think, when you have to resort to this kind of thing, but it is equally wrong, I think, for people to claim an attendance allowance in those particular circumstances. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the motives underlying the noble Lord's moving of this amendment. These matters were fully ventilated during the discussions in another place, and as the noble Lord has quite rightly said, the matter is still the subject of an action in the sheriff court and it is now unlikely, in fact, that the outcome will be known until October. But we remain of the opinion that it would be prudent to assess the situation in the light of the court's judgment. If the court's decision makes clear that an amendment of the Act is necessary, then we shall take steps to give effect to this at an early opportunity.
There are three reasons why I am reluctant to accept the amendment until the need for it has been proved. First, there is no evidence elsewhere in Scotland, or indeed anywhere in England, that the alleged loophole has been exploited; and, generally, I am against legislating for legislation's sake. Secondly, I think
1218
we can rely on the good sense of councillors to operate in the public interest and not to claim attendance allowances unnecessarily. The Kirkcaldy circumstances are, I hope, quite exceptional. Thirdly, for myself, I think these matters should be considered in the courts, certainly first of all, rather than Parliament taking action which might prove to be precipitate.
Of course, it was not the intention of Parliament in 1973 to permit the payment of attendance allowance to councillors who sit in on the meetings of committees of which they are not members and which they have not been authorised to attend. On the other hand, I am equally sure that it was not the intention of Parliament that a controlling group should exclude minority groups from major committees to such an extent that members of a minority party could find out what was happening in some major committees only by sitting in the public gallery.
What has happened is that in the Kirkcaldy District Council the ruling Labour group, which holds 23 of the 36 seats, have in fact excluded the minority parties entirely from the policy and resources committee, although this is by no means uncommon, but also from the housing committee, which is one of the main committees to which a district council addresses itself. Of the remaining major committees—that is to say, environmental matters, planning, leisure and recreation and general purposes—the ruling group have allowed only two places to the non-Labour members on a committee of 12 or 14. The ruling group have also decided which members of the minority parties will in fact be invited to occupy the two seats. So one could say, I think without fear of contradiction, that the minority parties on the Kirkcaldy District Council have been totally excluded from some major committees, such as the housing committee, and grossly underrepresented on others.
Local government statute vests responsibilities not with individuals, as with Ministers of the Crown, but with councils collectively. If a council decides to behave as Kirkcaldy has done and excludes a minority party from a major committee to which matters are delegated, then the members of the minority party none the less have to share in the collective responsibility of the council for the actions taken by their committees and sub-committees without having any opportunity to contribute to the debate in committee on the policy decisions reached. Obviously this is a thoroughly wrong and unsatisfactory situation. One can well understand why members of the minority parties of Kirkcaldy District Council felt it necessary to press the point by the device of pressing for an attendance allowance for sitting in the public gallery at meetings of major committees from which they had been excluded. Having said all that, the obvious answer is that the majority party on Kirkcaldy District Council should behave as other majority parties of any political complexion on other district councils normally do behave.
I hope, particularly for the three reasons which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that he will not press his amendment now. The Government are very alive to the problem, but we think, for the reasons r have given, that we should wait for the sheriff's court to announce its judgment before rushing towards legislation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thought I had explained that I have no sympathy with the action taken by the majority party on Kirkcaldy District Council, but what they did was legal. We may think that it was not the right behaviour, but it was legal. What the aggrieved parties then proceeded to do was to go and see what was going on in the committees. But not being authorised to be there as members of the committee or as observers, they were not there officially. The question now arises, what is it they have done in not officially attending but claiming an allowance? From my recollection of the intention of the 1973 Act, what they did was illegal. It is going to be settled by this test case and the noble Lord the Minister says the best thing to do is to wait; if the matter is settled to the advantage of the authority and as it was intended by Parliament, then that is that and nothing need follow.
But we have seen some surprising judgments at times in relation to the interpretation of statutes. I can remember one case in which a man who had been Solicitor-General in the Government passed an Act, or was concerned with an Act, and as a judge gave a judgment on part of that Act which threw the whole negotiating procedure in relation to teachers' salaries. There was a complete upheaval.
Since we know that there is the possibility of a loophole, would it not be far better to close that loophole? The Government say that if things go the wrong way then they will take an early opportunity to act. We have an early opportunity in respect of one Bill—I believe to do with water—with almost a pledge of legislation next Session. What will be an "early opportunity" for another Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? I would say, nil. What about the great civic Bill we were promised? We were told it was going to come before the House this Session and now we hear it will be in the next Session; it might or it might not. "An early opportunity" does not mean a thing. Anybody who knows anything about the jostling for position on the legislative programme will appreciate that the Scottish Office are not masters of their own house so far as this is concerned; it is tied in with the Government's whole programme, and how many Bills are going to be passed? I think the Government are quite wrong not to take this opportunity to close the loophole.
I was fascinated by the Minister's statement that, simply because one local authority does something, it does not mean there should be legislation on it. Does that apply to Clause 14 of this Bill as well? The only local authority we heard about that necessitates action is one authority, and we have the most impressive legislation that Scottish local government has ever experienced in the history of local government. I am afraid that the flexibility of the Minister of State's mind, certainly in relation to the use of argument against the various parts of this Bill, just does not add up to sense. His attitude to this particular one is not good sense. At this point I do not propose to take the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 40, line 38, column 3, leave out from ("buildings";") to ("and") in line 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 36:
Line 5, after ("1980;") insert ("to amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 in its application to Scotland;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment necessitated by the inclusion of the noble Earl's most welcome new clause after Clause 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
  PASSPORTS: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
  PASSPORTS: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE