Sitting of 5 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Resolved,
  That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), if proceedings on the Motions relating to Members' Salaries (Expression of Opinion), Members' Salaries, Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance and Parliament, have not been disposed of by half past Two o'clock, any Amendments to the first Motion, which have been selected by Mr. Speaker, may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed forthwith to put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed all the motions and selected amendments together before taking separate votes at 2.30 pm.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have seen and considered the amendment supported by 15 Labour Members which relates to full-time Members of Parliament being paid the full salary. While regretting that the amendment has not been chosen, I seek your guidance on the question whether a wide range of debate incorporating what is stated in the amendment will be possible, in view of the fact that the main motion is an expression of opinion.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, like other hon. Members whose amendments are not selected, will be able to express his opinion if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
  9.36 am
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of services on and after 13th June 1981 should be at the following yearly rates—

  (1) £13,950 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and

  (2) £8,130 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.

  With this we shall be discussing three further motions standing in my name. The first is:
  That the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1981 shall be at the following yearly rates—

  (1) £13,950 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and

  (2) £8,130 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.

  The second is:
  1202
  That, in the opinion of this House—

  (a)the limit on the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his parliamentary duties as general office expenses, on secretarial assistance and on research assistance should be £8,384 for the year ending 31st March 1982 and £8,480 for any subsequent year; and

  (b) provision should be made to enable each Member in receipt of the allowance to contribute sums, not exceeding in the year ending 31st March 1982 £838 and in any subsequent year £848, to an approved pension scheme for the provision of pensions or other benefits for or in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him; and

  (c) provision should be made under arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker to enable a Member in receipt of the allowance to incur further expenses for his parliamentary duties by obtaining temporary secretarial or research assistance while a person to whom a salary is paid by him is prevented through illness from providing such assistance.

  For the purposes of this resolution expenses which, at a time when Parliament is dissolved, are incurred in connection with his former or prospective parliamentary duties by a person who was a Member immediately before the dissolution shall be treated as incurred by him as a Member and for his parliamentary duties.
  The third is:
  That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House, in answer to a parliamentary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), of the Government's proposals for the coming year on the pay of hon. Members and Ministers and on secretarial allowances. Essentially, we propose a 6 per cent. increase in 1981. However, because of the withholding and staging of previous pay settlements, the position is a little complicated and has been misrepresented. I should therefore like to speak about each of the motions in turn.
  I take first the pay of hon. Members. In 1979, the Top Salaries Review Body recommended a salary of £12,000 for hon. Members who were not Ministers or other office holders. The Government accepted the figure, but because the existing salary at the time was only £6,897 we felt that the increase was too great to be paid in one go. It was therefore agreed by the House that the new salary should be introduced in three stages. The first stage was in 1979, and gave hon. Members a salary of £9,450. The second stage, of £10,725, came into payment last year. The third stage is due this year.
  A year ago, the review body's report dealing with 1980 recommended that the second and third stages should be increased by 14·6 per cent. to take account of inflation. Again, the Government felt that this was too large an increase, particularly in view of the need for strict pay restraint. Our proposal, which was accepted by the House, was for a 9·6 per cent. increase to both stages. This was 5 per cent. less than the increase recommended by the review body.
  This meant that hon. Members received a salary of £11,750 from 13 June 1980 and will automatically receive the third stage increase to £13,150 from the corning 13 June—that is next week—as a result of the resolution of the House passed last year. I stress that the increase from £11,750 to £13,150 was agreed as the right amount in 1980. In other words, that increase is being taken by hon. Members, if they agree to the motions, a year late.
  In any case, it makes no provision for 1981. In my view, it cannot fairly be argued that because hon. Members have shown restraint in the past and have

  1203
  therefore still to receive what is due to them from previous settlements, they should not get any increase specifically for this year.
  As the House knows, the review body reported again this year. Partly because of uncertainty about how hon. Members' pay would be determined in the future and partly because the rates that it recommended in 1980 had not been implemented, it felt unable to recommend a new rate. Instead, it urged us to implement the rate that it had recommended for 1980.
  The Government considered that a 6 per cent. increase in hon. Members' salaries in 1981 would be fair and reasonable, in the light of the 6 per cent. increase in the pay factor in cash limits that we have set for the public services generally. So we propose that hon. Members' salaries should be £13,950 with effect from 13 June. That would take their pay to just a little above the rate that was considered appropriate by the review body for application a year ago. Now that we have completed the staging process, the rate of pensionable pay will, of course, be the same as the rate of actual pay.
  Many commentators have combined the third stage increase, which had been withheld from previous years, with the additional 6 per cent. that we are proposing for this year. They claim from that that hon. Members are getting an 18·7 per cent. increase. I can only say that unless properly explained, that is misleading. In terms of the 1981 settlement—the only matter that we have to decide today—the increase that we are proposing is 6 per cent.—no more and no less. I hope that the House will agree that it is a right and fair increase. I cannot see how we can go higher when public service groups of employees have been offered only that much. There is no case for that. Equally, I see no justice in giving less.
  It should be remembered that since 1972, when hon. Members' salaries were last brought fully up to date in Top Salaries Review Body terms, prices have increased by 246 per cent., whereas even with the 6 per cent. increase now proposed, hon. Members' salaries will have increased by 210 per cent. That is considerably less than the increase in prices.
  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: Surely my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that the House, which probably does more than any other institution to perpetuate and encourage inflation, should seek to insulate itself against the effects of its own achievements.
  Mr. Pym: No, Sir. I am not proposing that, nor, as I have just explained, have we done so. In terms of inflation, we are in fact worse off. Therefore, that is taken fully into account. Perhaps that fact will give my hon. Friend the assurance and lead that he seeks. Those hon. Members who are wondering whether to accept the increases proposed in my motion may be encouraged to know that they will still be worse off in real terms.
  I remind the House that two similar motions on pay are on the Order Paper, that being the normal procedure.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the matter of the effect of inflation on our salaries, will he complete the picture by telling the House about allowances during the same period?
  Mr. Pym: I shall come to allowances in a moment. They can be drawn by hon. Members precisely to the
  1204
  extent that hon. Members use and require them. In other words, they are a reimbursement of expenses up to the maximum limit and cannot be taken into account with salaries, which are a remuneration for the job that we do here. Allowances can be claimed only for expenses actually incurred directly relating to parliamentary business.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: To complete the picture, the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what has been the rise in earnings in the community as a whole, compared with the rise in our earnings. Have not earnings in the community as a whole in the period concerned rather outstripped inflation and left us even further behind? The idea, suggested by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), that we seek to advantage ourselves, is romantic fiction.
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is right. I cannot give the precise percentage for the average increase in earnings, but they have increased by more than the rate of inflation. Considered from that point of view, Members of Parliament have treated themselves even less favourably.
  I was talking about the two motions on the Order Paper. The first is an expression of opinion and can be freely amended, but the second bears the Queen's Recommendation and cannot be amended, except to decrease the amount. The second motion is required because an effective resolution of the House to increase Members' pay leads to an increase in Exchequer contributions to the pension fund. Accordingly, any motion leading to such an increase formally requires the Queen's Recommendation. The House may recall that a motion bearing the Queen's Recommendation is necessary to increase the pay of United Kingdom members of the European Assembly, in line with those Members of this House. If the motion framed as an expression of opinion finds favour with the House, the second effective motion will be moved immediately afterwards.
  I come now to allowances. The increases here have not been staged, and therefore no catching up is involved. Last year the review body recommended that the rate of the allowance should be £8,000, and that was approved by the House. This year the review body proposes a 7·5 per cent. increase to £8,600. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, the Government consider that at a time when pay increases for other groups of public servants are being held within a cash limit of 6 per cent. and hon. Members are being asked to limit their salaries in a similar way, increases in allowances should also be kept within the same limit. We therefore propose that the secretarial and research assistance allowance should be £8,480, with effect from 13 June, next week. In terms of the motion, it means that the allowance will be £8,480 in a full year and £8,384 in the year ending 31 March 1982.
  We also propose that the supplement of £800 available to Members to use for the provision of a pension for their employees should be increased by 6 per cent. to £848 in a full year. At the moment the amount that may be contributed towards the provision of a pension for the employee may not exceed 10 per cent. of his or her salary. The review body was asked to consider whether that was a reasonable limit, but it did not have time to consider the matter in sufficient detail to justify proposing changes in the existing arrangements. For the time being, therefore,

  1205
  I propose to retain the limit, which I believe is a fair one. If the review body were to produce future recommendations in this regard we should of course consider them. I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who raised the matter with me.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reference to me. Will he make it clear to the House that the 10 per cent. limit is the result of an arbitrary decision by my right hon. Friend or his predecessor, and not a figure that has been established by the House? The motion before us in no way imposes that inner limit.
  Mr. Pym: That is correct. It arises as a result of a motion that was an expression of opinion, which enabled the Government to decide what the figure should be. My predecessor and the Government at the time thought that the 10 per cent. limit was fair, and I agree. However, I also agree that there are arguments about the matter. Therefore, I thought it helpful to ask the review body to consider the subject.
  This year, the review body made two specific recommendations for improvements in the secretarial allowance, both of which the Government accept and are incorporated in the motion. The first is that supplementary provision, pro rata to the secretarial and research allowance, should, if necessary, be made available where a Member of Parliament continues to pay his secretary or research assistant for a period of absence of more than four weeks. I shall be consulting through the usual channels about the precise rules that should govern the use of the supplementary provision, but I suggest that it should not be available for periods of less than four weeks' or more than six months continuous absence and should be paid only upon production of the appropriate medical evidence. I propose that this new facility should be introduced on 13 June 1981.
  The second improvement is that the secretarial allowance should continue to be payable during Dissolution. This is to assist hon. Members of the previous Parliament to undertake such parliamentary duties as may arise up until the time of the general election. But if this extension is not to be the subject of justified criticism by other candidates in the election, it is essential that secretaries should be paid only for work of a strictly parliamentary nature. Any work undertaken by the secretary that is party political in content must be paid for out of party or personal funds. I am sure that the House will see the force of this point and wish that restriction to be strictly upheld.
  The review body also suggested that the feasibility of the House supplying and maintaining such standard items of equipment as typewriters, dictation equipment and calculators for the use of Members and their secretaries should be explored. I have reservations about it, and the preliminary consideration suggests to me that some practical problems would arise in adopting a policy of that kind, but it is being looked at.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: In that connection, it seems to some of us that modern developments such as word processors are particularly applicable to much of the correspondence with which hon. Members have to deal. Might it not be possible for that aspect of the matter to be given special attention?
  Mr. Pym: I am sure that that matter can be considered, but I think that most hon. Members would wish to formulate their own words in any correspondence in which they engage. I know that my hon. Friend is a technocrat in these matters, and I am sure that his suggestion could be considered.
  Mr. Sainsbury: With word processors one can have on file paragraphs appropriate to the work of a number of hon. Members. If somebody writes, for example, about water rates, instead of a secretary having to type out a reply every time—it is a frequent topic of correspondence—the machine can do it automatically.
  Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend has struck a source of great controversy and I do not propose to enter into it. I have no doubt that a word processor would improve many of the letters that I write and many of the speeches that I make, but I have reservations about it.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would my right hon. Friend indicate to the House, either now or when he replies to the debate, the ratio of total allowances paid, say, in the last 12 months to the total of hon. Members salaries and remuneration?
  Mr. Pym: I do not see the relevance of that question, but if we can work out some figure we shall try to help my hon. Friend.
  The point about allowances is that they can be drawn only for expenses incurred directly and specifically for parly business, so the amount is not relevant to the consideration of salary. At any rate, that is my view of it. But I shall endeavour to produce a percentage of some sort when I reply to the debate.
  The motion seeks the approval of the House to a draft Order in respect of Ministers' salaries. Ministers and other office holders referred to in the order are in a very similar position to that of Members of Parliament. They, too, have had the increases proposed for them by the review body in 1979 implemented in three stages. Like hon. Members, Ministers and office holders—except Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney-General—had the second and third stages increased by 9·6 per cent., Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney-General limited their increases to 5 per cent.
  Under the terms of the order approved by Parliament last year, Ministers and office holders will automatically receive their third stage increase, as updated in 1980, with effect from 13 June 1981. The Government are proposing a 6 per cent. increase in the generality of ministerial salaries this year. That will give most Ministers a salary slightly above the levels recommended as appropriate by the review body in 1980, but Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney-General will still be below those levels.
  The rates shown in the order for the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are the rates that may be paid to the holders of these offices and that will apply for pension purposes. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that she and the Lord Chancellor will not draw the full salaries to which they are entitled but will continue to receive the same salary as their Cabinet colleagues.
  A special problem arises over the salaries of Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and other office holders in the House of Lords. In announcing an increase in ministerial salaries last year, the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that this group did not receive any

  1207
  salary specifically in respect of their parliamentary duties. She told the House that the Government proposed to consider how the arrangements for their remuneration should be revised to take account of that problem. As things stand, the difference in total remuneration received by Ministers in the House of Lords and those in this House is out of proportion to the differences in their duties, and in the Government's opinion the pay of Ministers in the House of Lords is not commensurate with their responsibilities.
  To overcome this, we propose to make arrangements for the ministerial salaries of Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and other office holders in the House of Lords to be increased by £3,500 over and above the general increases that I have described. This addition to their remuneration, in place of a parliamentary salary, is rather less than half the amount of the parliamentary salary payable to Ministers of this House.
  The way in which this will be achieved differs slightly for the different groups. In the case of Ministers of State, hon. Members may have noticed that the draft order this year, as in previous years, makes provision for a range of salaries. The Prime Minister proposes to use her discretion under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 to secure that Ministers of State in the House of Lords are paid at the top of this range, which runs from £19,775 to £23,275, while Ministers of State in the House of Common continue to be paid at the bottom of the range.
  In the case of Parliamentary Secretaries, a similar result will be obtained by increasing the maximum salary under the Act to £18,600. Parliamentary Secretaries in the House of Lords will be paid this maximum while those in the House of Commons will get £15,100, which is £3,500 less.
  The salaries of all other paid office holders in the House of Lords, except Cabinet Ministers—that is to say, the Lord Advocate, Whips and the Leader of the Opposition in that House—have been set in the draft order at £3,500 above the third stage levels approved last year, increased by 6 per cent. The Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees will also have their salaries enhanced by the same amount.
  Those, then, are the proposals of the Government for this year. For the future, we await with interest the results of the new Select Committee on Members' Salaries. I do not think that the House will expect me to say anything more on that until the report of that Committee has been received.
  My predecessor as Leader of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—told the House last year that getting the right rate of salary for Members of Parliament was essentially a question of balance. That applies equally to Members' allowances and ministerial salaries. Some Members may feel that we have been a little generous on certain points. Others will no doubt accuse us of being unnecessarily stingy. But I believe that we have the overall balance about right, and I hope that the House will support our proposals.
  It is necessary for the House to attend properly to these important matters of remuneration and allowances of our own membership. It is something we cannot dodge, whatever the Select Committee may recommend. I hope
  1208
  that the decisions that the Government have taken this year, after the most careful consideration and consultation, will be approved by the House.
  9.59 am
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Few would dispute the political sensitivities surrounding the question of the pay and allowances of Ministers and hon. Members. I listened carefully to the speech made by the Leader of the House in support of the proposals and I accept the general tenor of his comments, to the effect that the proposals are no more than fair and just.
  This debate—like virtually every other debate on this subject in recent years—takes place against a background of press and public exhortation for hon. Members to exercise restraint over their pay, to give a lead and to have regard to the wider perspectives of the interests of the nation as a whole. I would not seek to deny the validity of such exhortations. Equally, I accept that public and political accountability cannot be ignored. But I hope that on some occasion a Minister will take the time to explain the realities and complexities of hon. Members' pay and publicly to acknowledge the restraint and self-denial that has been exercised by both Ministers and hon. Members in the past 16 years.
  There was little acknowledgement in the right hon. Gentleman's speech of the restraint and self-denial that has been exercised in recent years. Indeed, he gave us one more instalment in the shabby exercise, initiated in 1979, to persuade hon. Members and the public that justice on pay—recommended by the independent report of the Top Salaries Review Body in 1979—must take second place to Government policy. I use the phrase "shabby exercise" to describe the Government's stance on hon. Members' pay in view of the terms used by the Prime Minister on 30 July 1979.
  Hon. Members will recall that the Prime Minister wrote to Lord Boyle, in his capacity as chairman of the review body, as follows:
  "It is our intention to accept and implement the recommendations you make."
  There was no qualification about the basis on which she invited the review body to proceed with its review. She gave a specific and unambiguous undertaking. The Prime Minister changed her mind. I do not cavil at Prime Ministers changing their minds, but having eaten her words, she still denies hon. Members—in June 1981— the updated salary that was recommended in 1979.
  It is no wonder that the review body under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Plowden, should be moved to make the following comments on page 3 of report No. 17, which is dated May 1981:
  "even when the final instalment of the increases agreed in 1980 is paid in June 1981, our Report No. 15 recommendations will still not have been implemented in full. To do so would produce an overall increase in salary cost of about 5 per cent. over and above the increase of 12 per cent. which is already due to be paid with effect from 13 June 1981 … while the amounts set out in Report No. 15 remain to be fully implemented, and having regard to current economic circumstances, we see no point in putting forward new figures which would add to the existing shortfall. We strongly recommend, however, that the salaries recommended in Report No. 15 should be implemented in full and as soon as possible."
  We are still awaiting the full, updated implementation of report No. 15.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had imposed an injustice on the House. Surely it is for the House to determine, by its vote, the sums that should be paid.
  Mr. William Hamilton: We did.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the proposition before the House is inadequate, why did he not table amendments to increase the sums involved?
  Mr. Morris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the introduction to my remarks on the recommendations of the Boyle committee. I argued that the Leader of the House had an obligation to explain the realities and complexities of hon. Members' pay. Therefore, I drew on the historical background of that report.
  I find it sad and disconcerting that public understanding of this issue has not been helped by the manner in which the proposals were presented by some newspapers after the Government's announcement of their intentions. Rarely have I read such squalid misrepresentations as those published on this subject. Some of the articles were hardly a lesson in objective journalism. I shall quote a few of them. On 16 May, the Daily Mail made the following observation:
  "MPs get the lion's share of pay rises."
  It described the Government's proposals as "pay provocation."
  On 16 May The Scotsman gave a particularly objectionable presentation of the facts under the heading "MP 19%: Doctor 6%". The article continued:
  "The MPs have given themselves by far the most handsome increase, an award amounting to nearly 19 per cent. Our soldiers, who die in Northern Ireland, not spout words about the province, get 10 per cent."
  As a Member of Parliament, I object to anyone putting that construction on these proposals. I found the Sunday Express of 17 May, which suggested that we were setting an appalling example, wholly questionable.
  The editorial in The Sun was particularly offensive. Under the heading "Gravy train", it made the following suggestion:
  "Members of Parliament have an advantage over the rest of us."
  Presumably, that is a reference to the community at large. It continued:
  "They repeatedly fix their own salaries. And now they appear likely to be generous to themselves. The Government has produced a report giving them a thumping 18 per cent. rise."
  It describes the Government's proposals as "humbug". Even more unfortunately the editorial concludes:
  "There can be no special gravy train for MPs."
  That is a gross distortion of the facts on Members' pay. It ignores the restraint that has time and time again been observed in recent years by Members and Ministers on their salaries and remuneration.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the squalid attitude in certain parts of the press, but does he not agree that it is scarcely better than the humbug of some hon. Members who demand that remuneration of full-time Members be cut, while they are drawing massive remuneration and pretending to do their work here at the same time?
  Mr. Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that an analogy can be drawn to that extent, but the essential difference is that if someone objects in the House he can be answered in the House.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) used the revealing phrase "the restraint that MPs have shown time and time again." If there were no inflation would not hon. Members' pay remain fixed indefinitely, like other remuneration? If one has to show restraint "time and time again" the continuing deterioration of inflation must to some extent be the responsibility of successive Parliaments. The Opposition cannot divorce themselves entirely from the responsibility for this because, as the right hon. Member rightly says, it has been going on for many years.
  Mr. Morris: I know of no hon. Member who seeks to divorce himself or herself from the realities of the problems that arise from inflation. Inflation is a fact of economic life, but our salaries and remuneration must take account of it as does every other salary increase demand. As I read the press reports of these proposals I had the feeling that the editors of the newspapers to which I have referred are in some peculiar way in favour of pay restraint as long as other people's pay is being restrained. I hope that the editors and leader writers to whom I have referred have exercised restraint in their own pay comparable to that accepted in recent years by hon. Members.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Or tell us what the figures are.
  Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend suggests that those people would do the House and the nation a service by identifying their salaries. I believe that parliamentary pay should not be so generous as to be an attraction in itself, nor so low as to discourage able aspirants from seeking membership. It should be sufficient to enable an hon. Member to devote all his time to parly duties. Hon. Members are entitled to fair and reasonable remuneration. I was pleased to note the emphasis which the Leader of the House placed on the current deliberations in the Select Committee about the linkage of hon. Members' pay with the appropriate Civil Service grade. I hope that those deliberations will be brought to a speedy conclusion.
  I have one or two comments to make about allowances generally. Will the Leader of the House comment on paragraph 13 of the Plowden report, No. 17? The Leader of the House referred to that paragraph when he commented on the payment for temporary assistance when an hon. Member's secretary or research assistant cannot work through illness. He generously suggested that the Government are sympathetic to such a suggestion. Another problem which has been drawn to my attention is the substitution of a secretary who might be ill for some time. Will he give his attention to this question, bearing in mind the fact that a medical certificate would be required to support the illness?
  The Leader of the House commented on paragraph 15, which deals with office equipment. I recognise that the provision, purchase and maintenance of office equipment arouses strong feelings and arguments on both sides.
  The Leader of the House suggested that he was not wholly sympathetic to that idea, but I hope that his views will not be unduly influenced by the views that I understand have been expressed by Officers of the House in relation to the additional staffing needed to implement that proposal. I look forward to the suggestion in the final two lines of the paragraph that a feasibility study should be undertaken.

  1211
  Paragraph 17 deals with travel expenses of hon. Members. One additional matter has been put to me in relation to travel expenses for hon. Members with young children. At present a provincial Member has occasional travel facilities to enable him to bring his wife to London. If he brings his children in his private car the cost is met by the car allowance. If he wishes to bring the children by train there is no provision for dealing with such expenditure. I hope that, in any further consideration, the Plowden Committee will consider that.
  I support the present proposals.
  10.17 am
  Mr. Edward du Cann: At the beginning of this Parliament the Government gave an undertaking that matters would proceed in a particular way. That was after much argument and discussion—all of it embarrassing and, in my view, unnecessary. That undertaking was given and it has been honoured ever since.
  My right hon. Friend, as Leader of the House, is responsible for the tabling of these motions exactly in accordance with the undertakings given. It is right that the House should pay tribute to him and thank him for his work. I am sure that the House was grateful, too, for the speech that he made, which, like the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), attempted to put the subject into context. However, I disagree with him in one respect. He said, as he was bound to say, that he believes that the Government have the balance about right and that the quantum of remuneration for Members of Parliament is right at present. I do not believe that to be so.
  Members of Parliament, in spite of all the recommendations and travail, are very much underpaid. The facilities that are available to us are inadequate still for all the great improvements that have been made in recent years to enable us to discharge our functions properly. Last, but by no means least, I have no doubt that Ministers are substantially underpaid.
  The right hon. Member for Openshaw, in saying that this was a sensitive subject and pointing out the way in which it had been so much misrepresented lately, did the House a service. If genuine misunderstandings arise—and they do—they arise from the way in which we have dealt with these matters in the past. That is what is wrong, and some of us will continue to seek to change that system.
  I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and others. They are right to express concern about the level of hon. Members' remuneration and the proposed increases. As the right hon. Member for Openshaw said and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House implied, we have a special responsibility in dealing with these matters. We are advocate and judge in our own case. The system should not and need not have developed in that way, but it has done so and there is inevitably some embarrassment.
  We also have a duty to set an example of moderation and good sense, and this is a moment of particular difficulty because of the disagreement between the Government and our splendid Civil Service, which serves the nation so well and honourably, and because many workers in the private sector have lost their jobs some are taking wage increases that are much lower than the rate of
  1212
  inflation and some have had no increase in pay. It is also a difficult moment because the effects of the economic recession are being felt by the population at large which is also having to bear the burdens of inflation, taxation, rates and other impositions.
  But it is always a difficult moment; it always has been and it always will be. There will always be misunderstandings and misrepresentations, some casual and some deliberate, but, in this matter as in others, that is no reason for not doing what is right in the general interest.
  The House and the nation must decide that Ministers and Members should be properly paid—that is to say, fairly paid—at all times. The public expect much from their public servants, not least from Ministers and leading figures in the Opposition. They have a duty in return to ensure that the conditions under which we operate are such that we can and will do the jobs with which they have been generous enough to entrust us, and that has not been the case in relation to pay for many years.
  I was struck by a remark of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that exactly mirrored the truth, as his utterances always do. Recalling the history of the matter he said that Governments had not been able to agree in the past because the proposed increases were too large. That is an extraordinary doctrine. Hon. Members have been behind for so long that no Government have had the courage to bring them up to a proper level, and the embarrassment has continued and been compounded over the years. But it is an extraordinary doctrine and an extraordinary way of handling our affairs.
  We have been behind in comparison with other nations, as was shown in an interesting paper published in The House Magazine recently. Representatives in Belgium receive £21,000 a year and those in Denmark receive about the same as we do. In the Federal Republic of Germany, Representatives receive more than £21,000 a year and in France they are paid £27,000. Those in Italy and Luxembourg receive much the same as we are about to receive, but Netherlands' Representatives are paid more than £20,000 a year. Only Representatives in the Republic of Ireland receive markedly less than we get.
  Not only are we well behind the other nations in Europe; we are behind in the United Kingdom context. I ought to put on record how the situation has developed since we agreed that we could not bring ourselves to decide these matters for ourselves and would therefore refer them to the Boyle committee.
  Our recommended salary in June 1975 was £8,000, but the actual salary was more than 25 per cent. less, at £5,750. In the previous three and a half years industrial wages had increased by 80 per cent. and Members' salaries by 28 per cent. In the seven and three-quarter years before that industrial wages had risen by 76½ per cent. and Members' salaries by 38½ per cent. The pattern has been the same in recent years.
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said—and it needs to be underlined—the large increases in pay that Members and Ministers appear to be getting this year are a mere consequence of the staging of previous recommendations made by the Boyle committee.
  In 1979 the twelfth report of the Top Salaries Review Body recommended an increase in our pay to £12,000. The Government did not agree to that, but I do not remember my constituents giving me credit for that piece of self-denial. I do not remember leading articles in newspapers

  1213
  saying that hon. Members were setting a splendid example. Instead, it was decreed that the increase should be paid in three stages. In 1980 the review body recommended that the third stage should be increased by 14·6 per cent. It was not; lesser sums were decreed by the Government and agreed by the House. I do not remember any leading articles saying that that was a splendid piece of self-sacrifice and a marvellous example to the nation.
  In the seventeenth report of the review body this year no new rates were recommended. Instead, it was recommended that at least the previous reports should be implemented. The House should note the implication of that. It is that the review body thought it no longer worthwhile to make recommendations, because the House and the Government would ignore them. A further implication was that hon. Members had fallen still further behind.
  The proposed figure of £13,950 is a little above the rate of £13,750 that the review body thought was appropriate a year ago. The supposed increase of 18·7 per cent. this year needs to be set against the fact that hon. Members have not had their salaries brought fully up to date since 1972, and the position of Ministers is even worse.
  It is not inappropriate to make a short comparison with the position of the Civil Service. With the exception of the top grades, which also come under the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body, the position of all non-industrial civil servants was brought fully up to date in the 1980 review.
  It is sometimes suggested that our remuneration should be linked to that of assistant secretaries. The mid-level of remuneration for an assistant secretary is £18,000 a year. We are substantially behind the comparison that most people have thought suitable for us over the years.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave a remarkable answer recently to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). My hon. Friend asked:
  "what has been the total sum expressed in current cash terms adjusted for inflation of which the pay of an hon. Member from February 1974 to date has been less than the total salary recommended by the Boyle committee over this period."
  My hon. Friend's answer was:
  "Fifteen thousand one hundred and fifty-nine pounds."—[Official Report, 13 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 1.]
  In plain English, that is the sum of money that each Member of Parliament has denied himself over the years. That figure should be far more widely known than it currently is. The ridiculousness of the present situation is demonstrated by the fact that this is, I think, the third debate on this subject in the present Parliament. I do not suppose that I shall be the only hon. Member to reflect that it seems extraordinary to spend a whole day on this matter at a time of grave economic crisis, when we are in the midst of a currency crisis and when there are so many aspects of our very worrying economic scene that we ought to be discussing.
  We are always short of time. During the past three days we have had a guillotine imposed on our discussion of an important matter because we are short of time. Why do we have to debate this matter yet again? It is because of our failure to face up to what we needed to do at the beginning of this Parliament, just as we failed to face up to it at the beginning of the last Parliament?
  My right hon. Friend is always a willing listener and is most sympathetic to the aspirations of the House. I am sure that he understands as well as anybody what needs to be done. I most strongly urge him to consider the views
  1214
  that the Parliamenary Labour Party and the 1922 Committee have put so consistently, that in these matters we should make decisions at the beginning of a Parliament and let them stand for the whole of that Parliament. Let us take the matter out of the cockpit of continuous debate, which is so tedious, tiresome and undignified for all of us.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Surely that time to debate this matter is not at the beginning but at the end of a Parliament.
  Mr. du Cann: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. By all means let the decision be made at the end of a Parliament, or let what is to be done be known and let the new Parliament take the decision. Clearly, discussion and consideration would need to take place at the end of a Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend on that. The precise time when legislative effect is given does not seem to me to matter very much, provided that it is done as from the beginning of a new Parliament.
  I wish to refer briefly to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and others. It is not easy for me to say this to the hon. Gentleman, as I dare say that he and I disagree violently about more matters than we shall ever agree about. Nevertheless, I appreciate the sincerity of what he seeks to propose, namely, the hon. Members should spend all their time on work in the House. I believe, however, that if we ever agreed to that the House would be very much the poorer for it. I have no doubt that the outside experience that hon. Members bring to their work here is of incalculable value, although it is perhaps not easy to define in specific terms. The day on which all of us are wholly dependent upon the Parliamentary salary for our existence, Parliament will be very much the poorer. The day when each of us becomes no more than a party forictionnaire, independence will substantially decrease.
  I hope with all my heart that there will always be a substantial majority on both sides of the House to ensure that the professional politician does not have a dominant place in the House of Commons. On the subject of the jealousies—and that is the word to use—that money always excites because Mr. A earns a living doing a particular thing outside and Mr. B does not, I merely comment that it is quite easy for Members of Parliament not to draw salaries and allowances if they do not so wish. That is a private matter for them, and I would much prefer to trust their discretion, good sense and integrity than to impose compulsions.
  For the rest, my main theme remains the same. Members of Parliament have consistently undervalued themselves for a long time. Ministers and Members of Parliament are neither so well paid nor so well provided with facilities as they should be. Therefore, the struggle—for that it is what it has been in recent years—to achieve improvements will and should continue.
  In the meantime, my right hon. Friend has honoured the Government's undertaking. I therefore end as I began by thanking and warmly congratulating him in that regard.
  10.35 am
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I disagreed with the penultimate comment of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) when he said that if we were all full-time Members of Parliament and relied totally upon parliamentary salaries, that would be so much the worse for the House. I suggest that it would be a great deal better

  1215
  for our constituents. My constituents do not suggest to me, as a full-time Member of Parliament, that I should become part-time and become good at something else as well. Our constituents' attitude is that they make demands upon us and wish that we had more time to meet those demands. They welcome the fact that an increasing number of Members of Parliament believe that the needs of their constituents are such that they should devote themselves full time to them.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the evidence is contrary to the claims and assertions of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that lack of an independent outside income would lead to hon. Members becoming party fonctionnaires. The Conservative Party, which is dominated by outside interests, loyally goes into the Lobbies time after time. I do not think that anyone could apply that criticism to the Labour Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which, at the very least, demonstrates that it has a fair measure of internal argument from time to time.
  Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Conservative Members may laugh, but can they really maintain that they are seen to be politically impartial and not influenced by the money that they may earn from sources other than their salaries as Members of Parliament? If one has another source of income, is it easy to demonstrate to one's constituents that one is not even a little influenced now and again by the interests that provide that other source of income?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to imply that union sponsorship would be subject to the same criticism.
  Mr. Dubs: No, it would not, for the obvious reason that union sponsorship goes to the constituency party and not into the pocket of the individual Member of Parliament. I am talking about the financial benefit that may be derived by an individual Member of Parliament and the fact that constituents cannot help but suspect that he might be influenced by the source of his money.
  My main point, however, is that in considering Members' pay and allowances I fear that most of our constituents think that we are just plain daft because of the way in which we approach this matter. They put it to me that if we cannot sort out our own affairs in a better way, how can we be expected to run the country? We make idiots of ourselves year after year by having these tortured and agonising debates. To that extent I agree with the right hon. Member for Taunton. We expose all this to public view because we cannot sensibly make the decisions that we ought to make. I thought that we were silly about this before I was elected to be a Member of Parliament a couple of years ago, and now I am convinced that we are even sillier, because of the way in which we approach this matter year after year.
  Having said that, I add that I find it invidious to have to vote on my own pay. The sooner that we get rid of this responsibility, and the sooner we can index-link and link our pay, as I hope that the Select Committee considering the matter will propose, the better it will be for us. We put our pay out to some kind of arbitration, to the Boyle committee, but we did not accept the results. I wish that
  1216
  a number of trade unionists were involved in the body that considers our pay, instead of merely the people now on the Plowden committee. If Mr. Clive Jenkins of ASTMS were negotiating our pay for us we would all be much better off and our case would be put forward in a much better way than is the case now.
  I believe that there are two issues that are more important than the pay that goes into our pockets. The first is what one might call severance pay when Members of Parliament cease to be Members, and the second is the allowance that we get for support services to enable us to do our jobs properly.
  It is my sad conclusion that because some Members of Parliament below pensionable age might find themselves in serious financial difficulties on ceasing to be Members, a number are here because they cannot afford to leave. I believe that at every general election a number stand again because they cannot face the financial consequences of having no source of income and no prospects of a job, and that even between general elections there might be a number who might feel that, for reasons of health, or for any other reasons, they would quit if they could afford to do so.
  Quite apart from the personal distress that that must cause the individuals concerned, I believe that it is unhealthy for British politics that there should be people here who just cannot afford not to be here.
  I should have thought that it would be better for politics in Britain if we could alter the arrangements so that Members would have, as it were, a pension for life on ceasing to be Members, even if we then had to live with the accusation that some people served as Members of Parliament for only a few years in order to have, as the newspapers would put it, a meal ticket for the rest of their days. I think that that would be a lesser evil and be less damaging to politics in Britain than the present situation, when a number of Members of Parliament do not want to be here but are forced to stay for financial reasons.
  Mr. Onslow: To enable the House to evaluate the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it might be better if he put a figure on it. What sort of pension for life is he suggesting? How would it be earned? Would it be based on length of service here, or on simple service during one Parliament?
  Mr. Dubs: I do not want to go into details implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, because the matter is complicated. There are a number of ways in which it could be done. I have not come here with any such proposals. Had I done so I should have tabled an amendment. It is not an easy matter to decide. It could be that we would give an ex-MP a proportion of his parliamentary salary to such people not earning any equivalent sum from elsewhere.
  That could be worked out. What I am saying is that it is damaging to politics that there are at least a number of MPs who are faced with this difficulty.
  My main point concerns the support services for Members. I welcome the two decisions announced by the Leader of the House: first that when Members' secretaries fall ill, provision will be made for Members to have temporary secretarial assistance during that period; and, secondly, that there will be secretarial support during periods when the House is dissolved. Nevertheless, it has been my impression, since first becoming a Member, that our back-up services are poor. When I have made that point to Members of longer standing they have said "Yes,

  1217
  of course you are right, but it was much worse when we first came here". That is the argument that all long-service Members seem to want to use.
  If one compares our support services with those of elected representatives in other countries, one finds that ours are bad. In the United States, a Member of the House of Representatives has a staff of 18. I understand that in France a Member of the Assembly has a staff of two. I understand that even in South Korea—hardly a haven for democratic government—Members of the Assembly also have a staff of two.
  I cannot understand why this problem was not resolved years ago. I have the smallest suspicion that it suits the Front Benches—whichever major party is in Government—that Back Benchers should be kept in their place, beaten down by the amount of work they have to do, because if we had better support services we could be more active on the political issues in which we are elected to take part.
  I am not for one moment criticising the support that we receive from the Library and the Research Department. That is excellent, but it is limited by the number of staff. It is my contention that every Member should have the backing of one full-time secretary and one full-time research assistant. At present, under our secretarial, research and office expense allowance, I think that there is an imputed sum of about £1,250 for research assistance. Frankly, I find it very difficult to know how such a sum can be used effectively. I have a research assistant who comes in on one day a week, but that is a difficult and unsatisfactory arrangement.
  It is because of the difficulties that I have had with that arrangement that I have put forward my amendments. They keep within the spirit of the 6 per cent. cash limit, not because I accept that limit, but because I hope that Conservative Members will be sympathetic to my amendments and will support them. I regret that my amendments are so complicated, but that is the difficulty when one is dealing not with legislation, but simply with a motion such as the one before us. I should have liked to spell my case out in even more detail, but that would have resulted in even more amendments.
  I should like to explain simply that I am seeking to do. First, I seek to add a research assistant to the staff of every MP who wishes to have support. Secondly, I am suggesting that any Members who avail themselves of this opportunity would have that research assistant or assistants paid through the Fees Office. I seek that because it is proper that when we increase the amount of money for our support, that should be accounted for satisfactorily.
  For support for that proposition I look to the first report from the Select Committee on Assistance to Private Members, published in May 1975. Paragraph 14 says:
  "We are all convinced that it is incumbent upon the House to set standards of accountability in the use of public funds that are above any possible public criticism. We think that arrangements which may have been sufficient when allowances were comparatively low will not be sufficient if the allowances are substantially increased."
  That, in a nutshell, is why I am suggesting that any additional amount of money made available to us should come through the Fees Office.
  There is some support for that—a little link, perhaps—in report No. 17 from the Top Salaries Review Body. Paragraph 16 of that report, under the broad heading of "Office equipment", says:
  1218
  "This and a number of other problems mentioned in this report would be greatly eased by the introduction of central employment of secretaries which we recommended in Report No. 13."
  I appreciate that being paid through the Fees Office is not the same as central employment, but really what one is talking about is proper accounting for sums made available. I wish that all moneys paid to any staff went through the Fees Office. I see my proposal as something of a compromise, in the hope that it will find favour with hon. Members.
  The third point implicit in my amendments is that flexibility between different heads of expenditure will still be retained and still be at the discretion of the individual Member of Parliament to allocate as between office expenses, secretarial expenses and research assistance. I put that forward because in the past the House has argued that individual Members of Parliament should have this flexibility. It does not contradict my point that money for resarch assistance should come through the Fees Office. What I am saying is that if a Member wishes to avail himself of such extra money, it should be paid through the Fees Office.
  If a Member wished to pay a research assistant more than the sum indicated, and therefore less to his secretary, the element described in the amendment would have to come through the Fees Office. I appreciate that it is complicated and that it may not sound 100 per cent. logical, but if Members accept that in the past the House has urged flexibility between expenditure heads, they will appreciate that that is what I am putting forward.
  Mr. Moate: I understand the point about flexibility. The amendment, as framed, would allow such flexibility, but, in effect, it would mean that in a full year £14,000 would be available to a Member and he could, if he wished, pay the whole of it to a secretary. There is nothing to prevent his paying all that money to one person—either secretary or research assistant. That would perpetuate the invidious situation, which often arises, of having a fairly large sum of money and not knowing how much should be made available to a secretary or to some other employee.
  Mr. Dubs: I concede the point made by the hon. Gentleman. If I had felt that I could impose the burden of an even greater number of amendments on the House, I should have suggested reservations, such as setting a maximum limit on the amount to be paid to each individual. That is not a serious criticsm, because, if the amendments are accepted, the Leader of the House will presumably take note of them and come back with more specific proposals. That is how the House has dealt with such matters in the past. There is nothing wrong with the Leader of the House coming back with fuller and more specific proposals than it is sensible for a Back Bencher to encompass, even with as long a series of amendments as I have tabled.
  I hope that the House will heed my suggestion. I am not asking the House to indulge in a vast increase of expenditure that will be seen to be extravagant. It is a modest proposal that a Member of Parliament should have enough money to pay for a typewriter, dictating equipment, a secretary and research assistant. It is the practice in most countries that have elected assemblies. I do not see why we should deny ourselves the necessary facilities to carry out our work for our constituents.
  10.52 am
  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I do not support the amendments to which the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) has been speaking. I question whether the substantial influx of so-called research assistants, which has already occurred, has rebounded vastly to the benefit of the House or of the public. It has certainly generated a great deal of extra business on the Order Paper by way of written questions at substantial cost to the taxpayer.
  I cannot see the evidence to support the argument that Back Benchers would be better able to perform their role if they were equipped with research assistants and the like. I am inclined to plead the example of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who, whatever views one may have of his opinions, undoubtedly makes a massive contribution to the work of the House, both upstairs and downstairs, and who, so far as I know, has no assistance of any kind. The case has not been made out, and I do not support the amendments.
  That apart, I did not find myself in agreement with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Battersea, South. I was least in agreement with him when he, in turn, was in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).
  There are two aspects of what my right hon. Friend said with which I agree. The first was his reference to the payment of Ministers. I welcome motion No. 4. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that Ministers of the Crown are not paid at a rate which ensures—this seems to be the crucial issue—that, in making their choice for ministerial appointments, the Government have a free hand and can attract whatever talents they need. Therefore, the argument for better financial treatment of Ministers is sound.
  I take a very different view of Back Benchers. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that Back Benchers should be encouraged to have outside employment. Indeed, I go rather further than my right hon. Friend in that respect. I believe that as far as possible, all Back Benchers should have outside employment, for the reasons that he expressed. However, there is another consideration that he did not mention.
  The House already grossly overloads its activities. I do not believe that the public benefit from the vast amount of legislation, that we constantly churn out, like a sausage machine. If the House sat and legislated less, we should have a more satisfied electorate than we have today. That is an additional reason why Back Benchers should have outside employment.
  If we were to go to a system of full-time Members of Parliament—to which I should be very much opposed—we should need fewer Members. There is no conceivable argument for having 635 full-time Members of Parliment. If we were to be really full-time, there would be no justification for having more than 300 Members. That would be a major reform and would go far beyond the scope of the motions that we are discussing.
  Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend has overlooked one possible advantage. If the number of Members remained the same, the choice of potential Ministers would be as wide as it is now. If the number were to be drastically reduced, the choice for Ministers of ability would correspondingly diminish.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I see the strength in that proposition, although I am not totally convinced by it. We should not exaggerate the range of choice offered by having 635 Members rather than 300 to choose from. However, I must not progress too far down that road, because it is rather wide of the motions.
  I can see three good points in the proposals for the payment of Members of Parliament. First, this year, thank goodness, there is no reference to indexation or analoguing. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Battersea, South on that subject. It is utterly indefensible for Members of Parliament, who must accept a considerable burden of responsibility for the scary escalation of inflation which has been inflicted on this country over many years, to seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of that performance. I have always been violently opposed to any suggestion of indexation or analoguing of our salaries for that reason. I find myself in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in this respect, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not proceeded down that road in relation to these motions.
  The second reason why I can see some arguments for the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that, as he pointed out, we are now putting our pension arrangements and our salary arrangements on an equal footing, and it is highly undesirable that we should devise our pension arrangements on the basis of a notional salary that we were not prepared to pay ourselves. I am glad that we have eliminated that disparity.
  The third point in favour of what my right hon. Friend proposes is that, so far as I can judge—he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—if the House accepted his proposals we should be tilting the ratio between our pay and our allowances in favour of pay and against allowances to some extent. My right hon. Friend said that he could not see the relevance to the matters before the House of my query about that ratio. Let me explain what I feel the relevance to be.
  I accept my right hon. Friend's point that allowances are related to expenditures that hon. Members incur under certain stated headings in the course of their duties, and are therefore deemed to be an ineluctable consequence of the job that we are supposed to do, although I am not clear about the logic, if that is so, of saying that the increase in the allowances should be related not to whatever evidence there may be of the increase in the cost that we incur in our work but to what the Government deem to be an appropriate cash limit for the current year. That proposition does not logically stand up.
  However, my important point is that it is extremely dangerous that we should see, as we did throughout the 1970s, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggested in his intervention, more and more of the total reimbursement for Members of Parliament received in the form of tax-free allowances. That has nothing to do with whether we can justify the claims that we can make upon these allowances, as we must be expected to do.
  The fact is that we have to determine the taxes that the nation shall pay. For that unique reason it is most undesirable that we should be moving more and more to having a higher and higher proportion of our total reimbursement in the form of tax-free allowances. If I am

  1221
  right, I welcome the move to tilt the balance back in the opposite direction as a result of my right hon. Friend's proposals.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Has my hon. Friend considered the implications for secretaries, research assistants and other people who work for hon. Members if we do not provide allowances sufficient to give them a reasonable salary? The temptation for hon. Members not to pay a reasonable salary, because they received a lump sum from which they had to pay their secretaries and others, would perhaps be even stronger than it is now.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I would argue that a reasonable salary is what is required to attract the secretarial assistance of the calibre that hon. Members need. We are a long way from threatening ourselves with the prospect that the allowances will be inadequate to attract secretaries of the calibre we need.
  I take the point that it is a question for debate whether one employs a research assistant and the balance that one strikes. In general, I believe that there is no reason why one should he unable to attract secretaries of an adequate calibre.
  Having said all that, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton or the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) that we can expect the electorate at large to take a more adult view—or however it may be described—of the proposed arrangements. There is no getting away from the fact—it is no good pretending that there is—that what is proposed in the motions is an 18½ per cent. increase in the pay of hon. Members, and it is bound to be interpreted in the country as such. I do not see that we can possibly avoid that interpretation. That is why some of my hon. Friends and I have tabled our amendment, which is designed to permit the so-called staging but to knock off the 6 per cent. addition that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has proposed.
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, but I am slightly confused. The burden of the amendment and of what he has just said is that 18 per cent. is unacceptable to the community and that therefore the increase should be less. But my hon. Friend has just argued that allowances go to hon. Members tax-free and that if we were being straightforward we should put all the money in a salary to hon. Members, who would then disburse it to those who were helping them.
  I have done a rough calculation. I may be £1,000 or £2,000 out, but, on the basis of the figures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I estimate that the commensurate salary for a Member of Parliament would be about £27,000.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Not enough.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Therefore, it is difficult to see the strength of the amendment to reduce what is proposed because 18 per cent. is too much, following immediately after an argument whose logical conclusion is that we should be paying ourselves £27,000 a year.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend's "logical conclusion" from my remarks about allowances does not follow. I was not saying that the allowances should be eliminated and completely incorporated in the salary. What I was saying was that the tendency that emerged in
  1222
  the 1970s for a higher and higher proportion of the total reimbursement of Members of Parliament to take the shape of tax-free allowances was undesirable for an assembly that has to determine the taxes that everyone has to pay. I should not draw from that the conclusion that my hon. Friend sought to draw, nor do I think that it follows from this argument.
  However, I do not suggest that there is any immutable perfection to our amendment. One can argue—it is for the House to decide—precisely what increment is appropriate or inappropriate at this time. I believe that what is bound to be interpreted as an 18½ per cent. increase is not good sense at this time.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly just now when he said that the purpose of his amendment was to secure the continuation of the intended arrangements for the coming year without the 6 per cent. addition? If that was his intention, why did he table the amendment at all? Last July and a few months ago we passed the necessary motions to continue the arrangement for the year just beginning. Therefore, all the hon. Gentleman needed to do was to vote against the Government's motion at the end of the day. Therefore, with respect to him, he has displayed procedural incompetence of a nature which, if applied to the passing of legislation, statutory instruments and so on, might suggest that his amateur way of approaching the business of the House had some faults.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The purpose of our amendment is perfectly clear. Even if the effect materialised which the hon. Gentleman concludes would occur if the Government's proposal were voted down, my proposition is that our amendment is designed to highlight a suggestion which might be open to argument and debate, and should be. If the hon. Gentleman believes that every amendment—even an amendment tabled by the official Opposition, if there is such a body nowadays—is watertight on every occasion, his experience of the House differs profoundly from my own.
  Mr. Cunningham: That is exactly what is wrong with the House. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Back Benches and, indeed, Oppositions approach the business of passing legislation in that amateur and incompetent fashion. The House will never exercise its powers over the Government unless right hon. and hon. Members do it more professionally and competently than the right hon. Gentleman has done on this occasion.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that we should have professional, competent and beautifully drafted legislation as a result of having 100 per cent. full-time Members, my answer is that I know that we would have a great deal more of it but that it would not be any more competently drafted, and I am certain that the impact on the nation would be worse than it is at present.
  Mr. Onslow: I realise that the great lather into which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has worked himself has so filled the Chamber that my hon. Friend has not had a chance to examine what is being said. However, the fact is that the Government's motion has two parts to it. We disagree with one part. The only way in which we can achieve our purpose effectively is to seek to amend that part—not to

  1223
  vote down the whole motion. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has made a rhubarb of his intervention.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend is correct. I made it clear that I agreed with some of the propositions advanced by my right hon. Friend. It is this specific proposition, however, which concerns me.
  It may be said and could be argued by my right hon. Friends that they have to make a judgment about what is likely to prove acceptable to the House of Commons as a whole and that if the Government had decided to put before the House a proposition such as the one that my hon. Friends and I are advancing, the House might have been inclined to overrule them.
  In a matter of this kind, the judgment must rest with the House. That is why I disagree so profoundly with the right hon. Member for Openshaw when he talks about the Government dictating these matters. It is for the House to make decisions. There is nothing remotely wrong or demeaning in the Government putting a proposition before the House and then finding that the House decides otherwise. The responsibility for these matters must rest with the House as a whole and the way that right hon. and hon. Members cast their votes. I do not believe that there is any way in which we can escape that responsibility. We would be better advised not to persist in trying to do so.
  11.15 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I have this much in common with the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne): of course people outside will view this proposal as an 18 per cent. increase, and the Civil Service will take that view, too.
  Very properly, the Leader of the House explained the divisions of the increase—the historic increases which have been staged, together with a 6 per cent. increase. The Civil Service unions would very much like a similar opportunity to put their case to an arbitrator and would accept the decision of that arbitrator, just as the Leader of the House has put his case to the judgment of Members of Parliament.
  Members of the Civil Service who are on strike feel very keenly that they are being denied that opportunity by the arbitrary fiat of the Government in refusing to allow their case to go to arbitration, and they feel enraged that the man with whom they are dealing on behalf of the Government has received an increase of £5,000, which is more than some civil servants earn in a working year.
  Having put that in its context, it is worth emphasising that the lengthy explanation which the Leader of the House felt it necessary to make to justify this increase is exactly the claim that the civil servants are making and why there is so much bitterness about the Government's decision and why they feel that it ought to go to arbitration. I hope that the Leader of the House will take that to heart.
  I have heard a number of comments about the proposed £13,950. On these occasions the air is rich with a vein of self-sacrifice in which successive hon. Members say how noble we have all been in restraining ourselves. However, the reality is that outside the House—in my constituency and, I suspect, in the constituencies of most hon. Members—a large proportion of the population receive
  1224
  wages and salaries which are far and away below the proposed £13,950. The sum is massively above average industrial earnings.
  Mr. Alan Clark: So it should be.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman says "So it should be". I am not sure that there is all that much justification, but there is an argument that Members of Parliament should be exempt from financial temptation, for example, because we have important decisions to make which affect every other person in the country. There is that argument, just as there is an argument about judges, for instance. But the notion that somehow we are subject to enormous self-sacrifice and restraint will go down with the population at large like a lead balloon because, to say the least, the proposed sum is adequate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) referred to a number of newspaper editorials and the fact that when The Sun, for instance, under the recently knighted Sir Larry Lamb—knighted for services to Conservative Party Central Office, although I understand that he has been sent on leave recently because the circulation of The Sun is sinking rapidly—makes an editorial comment it is careful not to refer to the salary which its editor receives, because the comment would then be exposed for the hypocrisy that it is. I have little doubt that the editors of our daily newspapers receive far more than £13,950 a year.
  I told Mr. Speaker how disappointed I was that the amendment that I and 14 other hon. Members had tabled was not called. I am sure that that was an oversight, but it is keenly disappointing, since more hon. Members put their names to it than to any other amendment.
  With Members of Parliament being paid £13,950, the public will expect them to do the job full time. With 2·5 million people unemployed, some workers still moonlight by doing other jobs. They are the subject of criticism. They are a tiny minority, however. Most people are pleased to hold down one full-time job, because 2·5 million to 3 million people are denied that opportunity. The least that hon. Members can do is to concentrate all their efforts on the job that the public pays them to do as Members of Parliament.
  We expect Ministers to do that. It is true that we pay them a great deal more, although the view that they are worth a greater sum is not always shared by the public. The public feel that if Ministers' salaries were commensurate with the damage that they are doing to the economy they would have money taken away from them. However, Ministers are not allowed to do work in addition to their Government work. They have to operate on a full-time basis, and during their term of office they have to rid themselves of any financial involvement in outside business, other than in family firms in which they have had a shareholding, for a period of time.
  That significant limitation is rightly and properly imposed on Ministers to free them from outside influences when they are making decisions. In many cases, but not all, Ministers bring their decisions to the House for discussion and approval by Members of Parliament. That puts us on a par with Ministers, because we have to decide whether their judgment is correct. Ought we not, therefore, to be required, on the same basis, to be free from outside influence when we exercise our judgment?
  The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that Parliament would be a dreadful place if all hon.

  1225
  Members were full time. He said that outside experience was necessary and brought a richness to the place. The experience that is apparently used to enrich this place, however, is always the experience of the elite decision-makers which brings rich and handsome rewards. I have never heard it suggested that to bring the richness and diversity of life to Parliament hon. Members should do engineering in the mornings. I have not heard it suggested that to bring the full richness and diversity of experience in the coal mines they should spend their mornings down a pit. It is always said they they should bring the richness of the board-room, of Lloyd's and of the Stock Exchange—the centres of monetary aggrandisement. That is the basis of the richness and experience. "Richness" is a suitable word, because its basis is the financial well-being of those who are making this claim.
  The hon. Members who have tabled the amendment to reduce Members' salaries have some effrontery in so doing. The hon. Member for Knutsford did not engage the House in any discussion of how, because he is an employee of the Daily Telegraph Ltd, he is better able than most to accept a reduction of £800. I have no doubt that The Daily Telegraph pays him handsomely for his contributions, although why it should remains a mystery to many people. He is also a consultant to Northern Engineering Industries, something that he presumably does not do out of charity.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has three directorships. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) has two directorships and a parliamentary advisership. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has five directorships and a consultancy. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) has two farms and a castle in Kent. He is not exactly, one imagines, close to the poverty line. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has two directorships and is a stock broker. One imagines that with 12 directorships, two farms, a castle and sundry adviserships between them they are well insulated from the vagaries of alterations in parliamentary salaries, but they should make that clear when they are proposing that other hon. Members who may not enjoy that insulation should take a reduction in pay of £800.
  I want to emphasise the question of full-time membership in relation to the point made by the right hon. Member for Taunton about party functionaries. He suggested that without this rich diversity of experience in stockbroking, membership of Lloyd's and directorships of various companies, which while bringing a wealth of experience to Parliament also brings wealth to the defenders of the system, Parliament would be the poorer. It is true that those individual Members would be the poorer, and I look forward eagerly to their volunteering for more mundane work of a manual nature so that, for the first time in their lives, they can bring a new rich experience and comment to Parliament.
  Is it true that full-time membership would reduce everyone to being drudging party hacks, in which circumstance the raised eyebrow of some party Whip would send a jellylike feeling into the backbone of a Member of Parliament because he could see his future political career curtailed? There is an element of that, but it springs not from party memebership, but from the patronage of Prime Ministers. Nobody has explained that this is an element in the invidious relationships which may however, because everyone knows that those Members
  1226
  who examine their career profiles with interest, when they see the Prime Minister pass by eagerly gather round to offer some suitable word and, they hope, get a word of encouragement. I have heard no criticism of that here——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is called grovelling.
  Mr. Cryer: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has given a neat summary of the position. We in the Labour Party have decided to elect our Leader on a wider basis than hitherto. When Labour is in Government we should like the Cabinet to be elected by the Parliamentary Labour Party to put the issue on a more democratic basis.
  The reality is that the Conservative Party is overwhelmingly dominated by people with outside interests. There are one or two such people in the Labour Party, and I criticise any of my hon. Friends who come into that category, but Labour Members are overwhelmingly full-time Member of Parliament, which means they have no other source of income. The political reality is that the Government can put virtually any motion before the House knowing that, with the exception of one or two hon. Members who generally only abstain, it will be voted through completely and fully. The patronage of the reader plays an important part. It has nothing to do with the fact that outside interests supposedly make them independent. That is not true. They are loyal to their party, come what may.
  The Parliamentary Labour Party, however, is not known for its comatose acquiescence to the leader's views. The Parliamentary Labour Party contains a diversity and richness of expressions. During the Labour Government I recall how the Whips, from time to time, had difficulty in getting full-time committed Labour Members through what the Government imagined, wrongly as it happens, was the Labour Party policy Lobby. Many hon. Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party took a different view. On one famous occasion 37 of them abstained, causing a slight temporary defeat for the Government. All 37 who abstained, despite great pressures, were full-time hon. Members with no other source of income. The notion that full-time membership of the House of Commons would reduce people to becoming some part of a party machine is not true.
  People may vote in this place with the maximum of integrity and with the fullest devotion to the cause that they think is right. However, if they have an outside financial interest that is seen to be in conflict, but not within the scope of the Erskine May rule on direct pecuniary interest, people outside will say that they are voting because it is to their financial advantage. Try as they might, hon. Members who take that action will not convince people outside that if there is some financial advantage to be gained by voting in a particular direction, that vote has not been cast solely for that reason.
  In this matter, as in others., justice has to be seen to be done. The best solution, in terms of fairness, to people outside and in fairness to the actions of hon. Members, is for hon. Members to be full-time Members of Parliament and nothing else.
  I wish to refer to the effectiveness of hon. Members. This place runs with about 150 to 200 people. Hon. Members constantly call for workers in factories to increase their productivity, to work harder, to submit

  1227
  reasonable pay claims, to indulge in wage restraint and all sorts of things, yet it is seen that two-thirds of hon. Members making those calls do not trouble to turn up here. Many call in only at five minutes to 10 o'clock for a 10 pm vote. Some people would argue that this place is organised so that lawyers can go into the courts, pick up a fat fee of £200 or £300 and come here later when it suits their convenience. When people call for higher productivity from workers outside, while themselves working very much part-time here and earning fat pickings in the courts, in directorships, in the Stock Exchange or in Lloyd's, people outside say that that is hypocrisy, and they are right to say so.
  The only way for the House to get rid of that justified criticism is to embark with determination towards the principle that those who work here for the public at the public expense should be full-time. The 2½ million unemployed receive public money in the form of dole. If, however, they are moonlighting and are caught being fraudulent, the serried ranks of the Conservative Party talk about scroungers and people cheating. Unemployment pay is a pittance compared with the £13,950 proposed in the motion. If the standard for people on the dole is that they should receive the public income and no more, the same standards should apply in this place. We are paid generously to do a job. We are paid more generously than are most people who earn a living in this country. The standard that applies outside in factories, offices, shops, bus companies and on the railways should apply in this place.
  11.36 am
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) knows that I have compared him in the past to one of the late Sydney Smith's wild curates, employed to preach bishops to death. His speech was a right curate's egg. Parts of it were excellent. Parts of it, he will be amazed to learn, I agree with. Parts were a little exaggerated—the kindest description I can apply.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that Members of this place should be underpaid and should be seen to be underpaid. I do not expect to carry much of the House in support of that view. Much of what I say will be an attempt to explain why I hold it.
  I agree with some of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). It seems ridiculous that we should be obliged to go on talking about this subject. I should like to see our precise underpayment fixed at the end of each Parliament and to leave our successors to volunteer at that rate of pay, which should remain fixed throughout the succeeding Parliament. That would be the most satisfactory and fair basis and would no doubt ensure that hon. Members were appropriately underpaid.
  A point that has not emerged in the debate is that we are all volunteers. To hear some hon. Members, one would think that we were all pressed men. One would think that we had been conscripted to the House of Commons. One would think that hon. Members, like civil servants, were concerned only to negotiate permanent and pensionable status on the basis that our employment is compulsory. Honest to goodness, every hon. Members knows that this is not true.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am confused. Members of the Armed Forces are all volunteers and yet hon. Members rightly exercise their minds on the salaries and remuneration paid to them. The fact that someone is a volunteer is no reason for determining that he should be paid a low salary.
  Mr. Onslow: I would be distracted from my theme if I tried to examine my hon. Friend's argument. It contains several fundamental fallacies. Members of the Forces are paid not on the basis that they are volunteers but for what they volunteer to do. We have volunteered to come here to pursue some personal motivation. We are here, I hope, to seek to serve our constituents by trying to improve the quality of government. We are not sent here to be paid political agitators. I do not believe that our constituents at large want us to be paid a sum that will enable us to devote our whole time to professional political agitation, as the hon. Member for Keighley would like, or, as his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) would like, paid an additional sum to enable us to employ a further paid political agitator under the name of a research assistant.
  I do not think that that is the purpose for which general elections are held. I do not believe that much of the clap-trap talked from the Opposition Benches about full-time Members of Parliament bears any relation to what Members of Parliament should be doing. Of course they should be defending the interests of their constituents and seeking to improve the quality of government, but I am dashed if I think that we should be paid handsomely to hang about while other people make speeches. Let me give an example. It is very generous of so many of my colleagues to be here to hear me, but I should hate to think that they were being paid heavily.
  Mr. du Cann: We are volunteers.
  Mr. Onslow: I am happy to have my right hon. Friend here, but I cannot let him think that volunteering for this onerous duty is likely to—or should—increase his remuneration. The country would probably be governed as well as it is now, so long as we remain subject to the constraints that affect us now, if this place were burnt to the ground and we met in a tent in New Palace Yard. That would do a lot to shorten our proceedings, and possibly make us more productive.
  I have a second and slightly less radical proposition, namely, that we should consider a reform whereby, once a Question is proposed, if 40 hon. Members rise in their places there may instantly be a vote for those who have already made up their minds. At the end of that vote, if the issue remains in doubt, there may be speeches. I put forward that proposition because I want to attack the bogus concept of a full-time Member of Parliament. Of course, this place is the life-blood of the hon. Member for Keighley. He is a sort of parliamentary vampire. Nothing pleases him more than to descend from the rafters in the small hours and get his teeth into the jugular vein of parliamentary democracy. But I do not see why we should all fasten ourselves into that blood-sucking role.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) knows very well that when the hon. Member for Keighley is down here sucking blood it is possible for some of us to seek to improve our chances of being chosen to

  1229
  represent this place at a certain sport. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not something that comes into the classification of a full-time Member of Parliament.
  Of course, there are times when we are very busy, and we have to do a lot on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the House. For instance, when a Select Committee is completing a report, and proofs of evidence have to be read and corrected, it is possible for a Member of Parliament to be fully occupied for 12 hours a day in the House and be so busy that he is unable to meet constituents who call here to see him. That is perfectly possible, and does happen, but it does not happen all the time. It certainly does not happen during the recess. The concept that parliamentary democracy is best served if we do nothing but professional full-time political agitation during the recess does not bear examination. The notion of a full-time Member of Parliament is humbug.
  I do not believe that those of us who have time and fortunes outside those which we have to devote to serving our constituents—each of us does that, subjectively, to the best of his ability—are wrong to do that. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. BruceGardyne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. I believe that first-hand experience outside the House brings much to parliamentary democracy. Nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley was more attractive than his proposal that business should be so arranged that he could spend the morning down the pit. That is a first-class idea. I think that I shall take it up with the Select Committee on Procedure. I can think of others who would benefit from his companionship in those circumstances. I commend the idea.
  I come back to the question of this debate. Probably the only authority that we can finally claim in the relationship between ourselves and our constituents is not just that we can say that we have come to this place because we stood for election and were elected, but that we can add that the basis on which we stood was that we wanted to come here to give and not to take. For that reason we must find a different method of deciding what money is adequate. It should not be excessive, or too little; it should be adequate. We should fix it for the life of a Parliament. It should be fixed by the outgoing Parliament, so that those who volunteer to stand for election in the succeeding Parliament know precisely on what terms they will be engaged, and that those terms will remain constant until the next general election.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Alan Clark: Before I came here, and when I first arrived, I thought that the best solution to this problem was probably that hon. Members should not be paid at all. That, of course, was the case for many hundreds of years. In spite of the strictures of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) against amateurism, I am still inclined to believe that there is a lot going for that idea, although I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) says, it would impose certain restrictions on the diversity and richness of those who would wish to come here, and that it is no longer practicable.
  Once one accepts that hon. Members should receive remuneration, it is extremely hard to fix the level. The House has tried many times, but never very successfully. I am quite certain that the existing level is far too low, as
  1230
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, not only for Back Benchers but particularly for Ministers.
  None the less, I feel very uneasy about the way in which the hon. Member for Keighley and those who signed his amendment attack the question of remuneration from outside. It seems to me that in the present compromise that we have, that is to say, between not paying Members at all and not paying them enough, it is improper to make the allegations with the kind of personal overtones that those of us who sit on Committees are used to from the Opposition, when they often open the proceedings by going down the list of hon. Members, noting their interests and somehow imputing a faint aura of disrepute to them because they have those interests.
  I shall respond in a moment to the personal element that the hon. Member for Keighley raised in my case. He was unable to identify any directorships or consultancies, because I do not have any, or any form of remuneration, as stated in his amendment. What he listed were certain assets. Am I expected to dispose of my assets? Are hon. Members expected to divest themselves entirely of their wealth and enter the House in a spirit of total monasticism? Is that really what the hon. Member is trying to persuade us to do? Possibly it is, because he then moved on to the absurd notion of the average industrial wage as being appropriate.
  Why not fix a level below the average industrial wage? After all, an average is arrived at by taking a mean between certain high figures and certain low ones. What is it that the hon. Member contends about being a Member of Parliament that makes it appropriate that the average should be the level of remuneration? As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, there is always something in what the hon. Member for Keighley says to the House, and there are always ingredients that it is impossible not to find, if not attractive, at any rate stimulating. The fundamental tenet of what he was saying was nonsense and, as is so often the case, spoilt the quality of what he was saying—populist nonsense, and rather inappropriate for this Chamber.
  Having said that, there is one element that intrudes into the way in which the remuneration of Members of this place is calculated which I feel we should look at with great caution, namely, the concept of indexation.
  The hon. Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and for Keighley said that our salaries must be index-linked. That is an interesting defect in their arguments, and one would have liked them to elaborate on it. But although we have, this time round, dropped overt index-linking, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when quoting the review body, mentioned its revealing phrase, used when it originally recommended 14·6 per cent. that it was to "take account of inflation". That phrase is a slightly longer way of saying that something should be index-linked.
  The whole question of the index is one for which ultimately—whatever party may be in Government, and for however long it has been progressing—the House of Commons must take responsibility. We are told that inflation is the principal cause of all our woes. Many sections of the country are making great sacrifices and suffering tremendous privations. The reward that they are promised at the end of the day, to justify those sacrifices, is that inflation will first be diminished and then got rid of. One has first to question whether such a solution will

  1231
  produce the radical results that we are told it will produce on the rest of the economy, and whether inflation really is the principal engine of all our discomforts. That is a wider issue.
  What is certain is that if it were only inflation with which we had to deal the House of Commons has the possibility—and has always had the possiblity—of getting rid of it virtually overnight. It does not do so, because of the consequences that may flow from the drastic action that would be required to do it. But the House of Commons is totally sovereign. It can take whatever measures it thinks appropriate at any time. If, for example, it were to revert to the gold standard, there would be consequences on inflation and other factors, but no Government could possibly afford to get rid of inflation. How could a Government with billions of pounds of outstanding loan, at double-figure coupons, afford to get rid of inflation? The longer we examine that question the more suspect it becomes.
  Getting rid of inflation is the goal that we hold out before the people. Every week in this Chamber we exhort the people to suffer this or that privation, discomfort, or shortcoming in their expectations, in the interest of reducing inflation. It is very hard to link that exhortation with a gradual, subtle and continuing adjustment of our own salaries to compensate for inflation. I know that we are not being compensated adequately.
  Mr. Dubs: There may be a little misunderstanding of what some of us on the Labour Benches have said. The concept of linkage that I favour is that the salaries of Members of Parliament should be linked to one or more outside salaries, and that when those outside salaries go up, ours go up accordingly, without any need for debate or discussion here. I agree that that would to a certain extent protect us from the effects of inflation, in so far as the salaries to which ours were linked were protected from inflation. But I was not suggesting that we should automatically be protected from inflation. I was saying that our salaries should be linked to some outside salaries, particularly to some salaries in the Civil Service.
  Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman seems to be wishing to reduce the scope of what he said earlier. He certainly mentioned index-linking. If he wishes to relate it to some other salary that moves at a less progressive rate, so be it, but he must remember that there are always people in the community who are not linked at all. There are always people who have no protection. There are people who have no association whatever with the erosion of savings and values that is the consequence of inflation. While those categories of people exist, it is completely inappropriate for the final, sovereign, corporate entity that the House of Commons is to protect itself in any measure from what is happening, and that which it knows it has the possibility of correcting.
  If everybody is attached to one index, the exercise is futile. Inflation simply rampages, and no one is protected. Index-linking is a polite phrase for isolating certain categories of earnings and certain sections of the community and putting them in a privileged position and protecting their earnings. If it is universal, it is meaningless. If it is restrictive, it establishes certain categories and certain privileges, and there are certain consequent jealousies and feelings of deprivation. The
  1232
  House should reflect very carefully before it puts itself in any manner whatever into one of those privileged categories.
  That is why I feel that although we have to accept the staging that was agreed, and on which the House has voted, we should at some time compose our minds and accept that our salaries are fixed at a level that the House thinks appropriate at that time; that they are fixed for our successors in the following Parliament, and not for ourselves; and that once they have been fixed there can be no subsequent adjustment, tinkering, compensation or anything of that kind until the end of the Parliament that follows that which fixed them. Only in a context of that kind can we justify much of the legislation and much of the verbiage and exhortation that come so frequently from this Chamber.
  11.58 am
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on one point. It was raised also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). I refer to the important question whether the practical thing to do is to index the remuneration of Members at the beginning or at the end of a Parliament for, say, four or five years.
  On the face of it, it seems a plausible and interesting suggestion with many merits, but let us consider the consequence of current rates of inflation. If inflation were running at 5 per cent., in five years that remuneration would be reduced in real terms by approximately one-third. If it were running at 10 per cent., at the end of five years it would be reduced in value by two-thirds. If it had been running—as it was at one time—at 20 per cent., at the end of five years, with no adjustment, the real value of the parliamentary income would be one-eighth of what it was at the beginning.
  It may be that hon. Members take the view that, being responsible for inflation, at least in the theoretical sense, we should not—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton argued convincingly—be exempt from the consequences of inflation, but it is unrealistic to suggest that, with inflation running at the sort of figure at which it has been running, we can pretend that Members of the House should be completely and perhaps specially vulnerable to the consequences of it.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—unfortunately he is not present—raised again and again the question of part-time Members. Sometimes when I listen to him I am reminded of the little dog on the HMV record—"His Master's Voice"—except that in his case I imagine a different animal. Perched on his shoulder I see a rather diseased parrot with a bald pate, one leg and a rather viscious claw. That, I think, colours the hon. Gentleman's whole outlook. When I hear his sad, sardonic, savage and suppurating sentiments again and again in the Chamber, I realise that the bird has a very tight claw in the hon. Gentleman's shoulder.
  Why do I see the hon. Gentleman in that way? It is because nothing grows on the parrot's sterile pate. With its one leg, it is perpetually unbalanced in its point of view. It has one wing, because it is a body that will never fly. It has a jaundiced eye, because it cannot see the real world for what it is. That is why, so often, the hon. Member for

  1233
  Keighley and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—who is also not present—come to the House and ask us to accept unrealistic views of the world.
  There is an important consideration to be borne in mind. The hon. Member for Keighley suggested that the House should impose on hon. Members a definition of full-time employment. That would deprive the electorate of considerable basic rights. If the electorate were offered a choice between a candidate by the name of F.E. Smith and a candidate by the name of the hon. Member for Keighley, there is no doubt about whom they would choose to represent them, whether or not—as compared with the hon. Gentleman's 16 hours—the candidate was a one-hour-a-day man or a one-hour-a-week man. One could go through a whole range of such choices. It would not be acceptable to the electorate to have such a limitation imposed upon their choice.
  More seriously, in pursuing the concept of a full-time Member of Parliament the hon. Member for Keighley asked us to seek an unattainable absolute. There is no such thing as absolute impartiality. The hon. Gentleman would divest us of directorships, associations with Lloyd's, and so on. To achieve his ideal we should have to divest ourselves of any form of ownership of land. In addition, we should probably have to divest ourselves of any form of property ownership so that it could not be suggested that we were in a different position from our less fortunate constituents. Ultimately, one would reach an unacceptable and unrealistic position.
  Sir Albert Costain: Perhaps I should clear up one thing. When we say that Opposition Members could put things right by divesting themselves of all trade union interests, they do not see that argument. Why is that?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps Opposition Members can explain why they do not see the mirror image of their arguments, but I cannot.
  Mr. Dubs: I think that the point has been answered. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see a difference between remuneration for directorships and a trade union that gives money to a Labour Member's constituency party. There is all the difference in the world between money that goes into one's pocket and money that goes to help an impoverished local party.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has made a distinction but it does not seem to involve a fundamental difference of principle. If a sponsored Labour Member receives additional remuneration from that source, he is in an identical position to a Conservative Member who receives additional remuneration from a source that he has declared.
  Mr. Dubs: A trade union sponsored Member of Parliament does not receive the money; it goes to his constituency party.
  Mr. Lloyd: That brings us back to absolutes. If we seek absolute purity, it should be borne in mind that even if sponsorship does not result in personal benefit to the individual, it must to some extent colour his thinking when he votes. The hon. Member for Keighley asked us to be sterile in our approach to such matters. He asked us to remain untainted, as if we lived in the sort of fifth-condition clean room that exists when semi-conductors are
  1234
  made. Only one particle per billion of the air is impure. Politically, that is unobtainable, and it is unrealistic of Labour Members to argue for it.
  Mr. Moate: If it is the Opposition's contention that they have many full-time hon. Members and that we have many part-time hon. Members, how can they explain to the public that there are only two Labour, but 17 Conservative, Members in the Chamber for this important debate?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has made an effective and telling point. The explanation suggests itself.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will react fairly speedily to one of the matters that I wish to raise, because it is important. I should like to put one other matter before him as a suggestion. The question of hon. Members' pay being exemplary has been widely discussed. I do not wish to range over most of the arguments that have been put forward, but there is an interesting point to be made. I understand that it is the established practice in America that no member of the civil service may be paid more than a Member of Congress. That has long been the position. I am not suggesting that we could move immediately, or even over a comparatively protracted period to that situation. Nevertheless, there are considerable advantages in that. We should consider that proposition if we are to be exemplary and set an anti-inflationary mode. To judge from the experience of Congress, there are good reasons why the 600,000 members of the Civil Service should be below the pyramid set by the House. We should consider that even if it involves a 5 or 10-year transition period.
  The more mundane point nevertheless reflects the importance and value of the proposals before us. I refer to allowable travel expenditure. We all have—particularly within central London—a wide range of travel obligations. From time to time, all of us visit Ministries to represent our constituents. Many of us attend Government receptions, and, in our capacity as Members of Parliament, are invited to embassy receptions. If we were members of the Anglo-Ruritanian Parliamentary Society it would be our duty to attend the Ruritanian embassy's annual reception. Many of us attend organised conferences on subjects that interest us, whether they be on energy, defence or social security. Institutions organise such conferences and we attend them in our capacity as Members of Parliament. At such conventions we often meet members of the Front Benches. They properly arrive in official cars. Similarly, members of private industry often arrive in transport that is rightly paid for.
  Until recently my claim for travel expenses in London has always been accepted. That has been so for 15 years. It will be of interest to every hon. Member to know that that is no longer so. I have been advised that the totality of travelling expenses in London will not be allowed. I am told that such travelling is done, not in the line of duty, but to gather "background information".
  That raises several matters of principle. First, the proposition is nonsense. The only person who can judge a Member of Parliament's duty is a Member of Parliament. It does not behove the Inland Revenue or the Government to tell us what our duties are. The tax inspector should ensure only that the money has been spent in the line of duty. If my claim is wiped out, every hon. Member's claim will be wiped out. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is a correct decision? If so, what are the consequences likely to be, and what steps will be taken?

  1235
  I come now to a matter that arises to some extent from an intervention made—with some amusement—by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). By chance, two or three days ago the report of the Clerk of the House to Congress arrived on the Congressional table in the Library. I commend it to hon. Members as a document of considerable interest.
  If we think that we are doing ourselves proudly or extravagantly, let me summarise some of the figures in that document. It would be unfair to name the Congressman concerned, but hon. Members may look it up. I shall call him Congressman A. He has a full-time staff of 26 people. He has a salary bill, paid for by the United States Federal Government, of £128,000 per annum. In addition, he has a personal expense claim, which is listed in the greatest detail in the volume, of about £40,000 per annum. We may argue that that is irrevelant to our circumstances, that the United States is a richer country than we are, that the obligations of a Member of the United States Congress are greater than ours, and so on, and I should accept a considerable downgrading or qualification of those figures to make them relevant to our circumstances.
  There is one aspect of that expense claim to which I wish to draw the attention of the House by way of explanation. The figures that I am giving are not atypical, but typical. I have gone through the volume, and almost every other Member of Congress has a similar claim. It is a matter of interest that the claim is set out in great detail in a public document. We can reflect on the importance of that.
  Secondly, the average United States Member of Congress is supplied with much information technology.
  Congressman A's claim consists of a telephone coupler to a computer, $49, computer service dual access charges for prime hours, $124, computer service for April, $875, work station with tray, $15, coupler for computer, $49, and so on. There are about 18 items, amounting to a total of ·3,800 per quarter—about $14,000 a year. That is the allowance claimed by a Member of the United States Congress for his information technology support alone—nothing else.
  I am sure that it will be argued that that is wasteful, and unnecessary, and that it reflects an American view of life and an American way of doing things. There may be merit in that criticism. I am not suggesting that it is necessary for us to have support on that scale. We might not approach it even within a decade. The only argument that I leave with my right hon. Friend is that that suggests a criticism, which has been published, of our attention to those affairs, and not only by the Senior Librarian in the other place. I have discovered an interesting book by the Deputy Librarian of this House, which contains a criticism that we have fallen badly behind in the past 10 years and must now take this matter more seriously. That is supported by the figures that I have placed before the House.
  12.13 pm
  Sir Albert Costain: I know that the House wants to come to a conclusion but I shall refer to the speech made by my constituent, my hon. friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark). He proposed that we should enter into a contract at the
  1236
  beginning of a Parliament and that would remain the salary and remuneration for the lifetime of that Parliament. Twenty years ago that would have been an excellent suggestion. At that time most firms entered into service contracts with their employees which lasted for three, four or five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) pointed out that, with the present rate of inflation, that would be quite impracticable.
  The debate has ranged over the duties of a Member of Parliament, how he should carry out his duties and what experience he should have. I was amazed by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. BruceGardyne). Anyone from outside reading that speech will be misled by what he said about tax-free allowances. He spoke about tax-free allowances for secretaries and so on. No director or works manager of a company would be able to claim a tax-free allowance for his secretary. A secretary is as necessary to a Member of Parliament as to any business man.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that secretaries pay income tax and that my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) presented misleading arguments?
  Sir Albert Costain: That is true but it is not the point that I was making. A secretary is as necessary to a Member of Parliament as to anyone in business and one would not dream of adding the secretary's salary to the salary of the person concerned.
  A further point was raised about full-time and part-time employment. What is an MP's job? Some Opposition Members take the view that a Member's job is to attend Question Time, to sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway and ask as many questions as he wishes. When they have not been called they carry on a conversation as if they were at a football match. That is considered to be a full-time job. That is a disservice to the process of legislation.
  Many hon. Members spend their time on Select Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. I could not carry out my job on the Public Accounts Committee without my previous experience in industry. It is essential that hon. Members come to this place with outside experience.
  Many hon. Members do not understand the process of being represented by a trade union or carrying trade union interests against commercial interests. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) repeatedly said that it was different because the trade unions pay not the individual but the constituency. However, the constituency selects the Member. It is important that that person satisfies the demands of the trade union in the way he votes in this place, or the trade union will ask the constituency to get rid of its Member because he is not representing the union properly.
  Industry cannot sack an hon. Member. I have found that my business experience in the construction industry has been of enormous help to my constituents. I disregard the question whether hon. Members should be full-time attenders. If they were we should have civil servants to write memos and we would live in a monastery where hon. Members would talk without having the benefit of up-to-date knowledge.
  12.17 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I half heard earlier a remark about the fact that some Opposition Members had tabled an amendment about full-time Members of Parliament and only those Members being paid. It seems that of Conservative Members only those part-time Members were present and those who were full-time were missing. It is one of those sensitive days. It is one of those days when people want to be here but they find some pressing constituency matter. There must be something pressing to be dealt with up in——
  Mr. Cryer: Like those hon. Member who have been invited to the Royal Wedding.
  Mr. Skinner: 1 suppose that some are making plans for that. They are probably making all their arrangements.
  However, some of us come to the House to explain why we take the view that hon. Members should be full-time. I tend to the view that the numbers that accept the philosophy that has been expounded by hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) are on the increase. The Conservatives may regard that as a bad idea but there is no doubt that in the 11 years since I have been a Member a number of hon. Members have felt that the job of a Member of Parliament should be full-time.
  We are all products of our environment and I came straight out of the pits to the House. Indeed, I worked in the pits for a couple of days after I had been elected because I was waiting for a card to arrive from the House telling me to start work. Nothing arrived because all the mail was coming to the House. I knew that the wages were better than the £18 a week I was getting in the pit, but no one told me to start work.
  I said to the missus, "Mary, has the postman been with a card to tell me to start work at the House of Commons?" I thought that the card might be gold-edged, but nothing came and on the Monday morning after the election I went back to the Glapwell pit to do another shift. The men there asked "What are you doing here?" I said "I am not sure when I start getting paid in my new job." The late Tom Swain rang me and said that I could pack up work because I had been on the payroll of the House ever since the election result was declared.
  The only person who tells an hon. Member to come here is the Chief Whip of his party. He is the only bloke who gives an indication that he wants an hon. Member in the building. The top people's newspaper—as it was until the new bloke took over; it is getting shabbier every day—reported that Mr. Speaker would be asking hon. Members to take the oath or otherwise on a certain day. That was the first indication to hon. Members that they should come to the House. The Chief Whip eventually got around to telling hon. Members that there might be a three-line Whip. I have on occasions had to take account of such Whips, not because the Chief Whip says so, but because my class interest dictates that I must.
  There is no doubt that this place is a club and some of us believe that to represent our constituents more fully we ought to work at the job a lot harder. I have no doubt that when Labour candidates go to selection conferences and meet all the wonderful groups of men and women—whom those candidates will later call caucuses—they make it clear that they want to get to Parliament to represent the constituency, their class, their trade union and so on. I bet they never say "When I get there I am going to make a
  1238
  difference to the money. One of the first things that I intend to do is to make sure that we get more money." I am sure that prospective candidates tell selection meetings that they want to get to Westminster in order to change society and that they want a more egalitarian society and want to ensure that people have equal opportunities. Those of us who try to carry out those aims are not sent to Coventry, but many of those successful candidates do not like what we are trying to do.
  It is right that some of us should draw attention to the fact that hon. Members should be full-time. It is suggested that it is a good idea to have hon. Members working in industry and commerce because it enables them to keep in touch with what is happening. But there are no pits in London for me to go down. Anyway, how could a Member be a miner at the same time, even if there were a pit three miles down the road? It could not be done.
  Only certain groups, including lawyers, advisers, consultants, directors and so on, can engage in commercial activities while they are hon. Members. A school teacher cannot continue to teach young children while he is an hon. Member. Over the years we have seen an increasing number of Members moonlighting on the side. I do not know the figures, but I guess that there are many hon. Members doing the jobs of journalists and writing for the Tory newspapers. Labour Members write for The Sun and pick up money that should go to journalists. It is like taking bread out of the mouths of journalists' kids.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no point of view that can be expressed by an hon. Member that cannot be duplicated by a journalist outside?
  Mr. Skinner: There are usually about 150 journalists in the Press Gallery at Question Time ready to write down everything that we say. We have great opportunitites to get our message across. My hon. Friends and I argue that the Tory press is not keen on putting our message across, but the press is here to report what is said in the Chamber. Even if the hon. Gentleman's local Lobby correspondent is not working full-time, the hon. Gentleman can meet him in Annie's Bar and explain what pearls of wisdom he has been pouring out in the Chamber.
  Hon. Members should not be doing the job of journalists. One of the contenders for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party writes in the Tory New Standard each week. Someone said that he was on a retainer of £25,000 a year. That is a lot of money and the New Standard is a Tory newspaper which hammered our Labour colleagues into the ground for about three months before the GLC elections.
  That candidate for the deputy leadership of our party does not stick to his portfolio and write only about foreign policy. He writes about economic, housing and health matters and the rest. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has never said a word about that. Many other right hon. Members who lose their Cabinet posts and face a reduction in pay take on outside work. But there are at least 150 hon. Members who could not carry on the jobs that they used to do. There are 18 sponsored miners' Members of Parliament and a number of engineers, teachers and lecturers.
  Mr. Cryer: Very good people.
  Mr. Skinner: Some, though not all, are very good people and, with a few exceptions, they cannot carry on

  1239
  their jobs. We ought to blow sky high the idea that all 635 Members can be well-versed in business and commercial activities.
  The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) said that my hon. Friends and I were full-time Members for the purpose of heckling Tory Prime Ministers and Ministers. What is wrong with that? Before I was elected to the House, I read in the posh books dealing with how this place works—I thought that I had better gen up on it—that that was in order. It puts a bit of life into the place, but we do not engage in the "Yah-boo" animal noises at Question time. When the Prime Minister comes in about 100 Tory Members shout "Hear, hear" and 100 Labour Members boo her. We wait for the opportune moment to make our remarks. What is wrong with that? As we are full-time Members, we have more opportunities of making such remarks than do hon. Members who are not here all the time.
  The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe also referred to trade union sponsorship and claimed that sponsored Members support their trade unions willy-nilly. I cannot speak for anyone else, but when the miners' union decided to support the previous Government's 10 per cent. incomes policy I went into the Lobby against it, along with a few other hon. Members. It did not matter to me what the trade union leadership or indeed the rank and file thought, even though unfortunately, the rank and file of the miners' union voted in the ballot to support the 10 per cent. incomes policy. They now wish that they had not, of course.
  I represent my class here and sometimes conference decisions conflict with that interest. It is the same with the trade union interest. I come here to represent my class, and it is on that basis that I decide how I shall vote on all the issues. It does not matter to me whether the Chief Whip has a different view.
  Sir Albert Costain: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. My point related to the situation in which a trade union sponsoring an hon. Member does not like what he does. Clearly, the hon. Member's union likes him so much that he can do what he likes. I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about a trade union which sponsors an hon. Member and then tells him that unless he supports his union he will not be readopted and it has the power to ensure that the constituency party carries that out.
  Mr. Skinner: In the 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I do not know of one instance in which that has happened. Yet I could give countless examples of Labour Members sponsored by trade unions who have not supported the trade union line. There may be people who are no longer sponsored by a union, but I do not know of one case in which an hon. Member has had sponsorship withdrawn as a result of that kind of conflict.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman says that he is here to propagate his class interest, but if the conference decrees something different and the rank and file union membership decrees something different and his own Front Bench decrees something different, how does he determine what that class interest is?
  Mr. Skinner: It is here, deep inside me. When the Labour Party was in office, there were many occasions on
  1240
  which the Government were wrong. I had to vote against them 154 times because they were straying from party policy. As I said, the miners voted for a 10 per cent. incomes policy. In my view, they were wrong. They were not representing their own class interest, so I had to vote against it.
  I understand what my class interest is. I do not get into these grey areas and worry about what my next move should be. I know absolutely what my class interest is. When all these other errant bodies veer away, that is their business. I know where I am. I know that I was against the Common Market in 1967 and right through the whole piece. My job to represent my class is to put as many lockers as I possibly can in all the gravy trains going back and forth to the Common Market. I know that that is my class interest.
  The same applies to interference with free collective bargaining, improving the prospects of the low paid and the redistribution of income. Sometimes some of these bodies get mixed up and imagine that if only they hold back for a few years until the IMF or some other organisation has dealt with us, there will be a golden year coming round the corner. I am not prepared to wait for that golden year before I represent my class. I have been in politics for 30 years and there has always been a golden year around the corner, but I have never found it.
  What do all the old age pensioners waiting for their increase in November think about golden years? They have just had a further 1 per cent. knocked off. When today we debate Members' salaries we find that there is some magic machinery which allows our money to be paid immediately, yet when the old age pensioners say that the cost of living is going through the roof and the taxes and prices index devised by the Tory Government not long ago has risen by 15 per cent. and ask why they must wait until November, the Tory Government, like other Governments before them, say that they cannot get it through because the computers will not work fast enough. The computers will work fast enough for these increases, which are to be paid on the dot. That is why pensioners and others are asking what has become of the golden year.
  The same applies to nurses, to whom the Government are offering 6 per cent. at a time when 18·7 per cent. is on the cards. Even the Royal College of Nursing which has never been militant in these matters will be asking where is the golden year that it was told about so many years ago. It was told that if it would only hold back and allow the instrument to operate, it would bring all the money in its direction so that it would be all right. People outside know that that is nonsense.
  The Government are proposing this increase at a time when it is said that they do not have a wages policy but when all of those lower paid groups must settle for 6 per cent. and in some cases less. The railwaymen, for instance, are now being told that they can have only 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. Yet at the same time, these increases can go through.
  This does not apply only to Members of Parliament. I was reading the other day that a whole new ethos is now operating for the pay of those in the higher echelons of industry. I am told that Peter Barker is now being offered an increase of up to £30,000. So it is not only here that I complain about this kind of thing. At a recent Labour Party National Executive Committee meeting I made a suggestion about the salaries of those in Walworth Road, who are suffering financial difficulties despite all the

  1241
  money that I and many others give them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They say that they, too, must have an increase, and this goes right through the scale. I suggested a cut-off point at two-and-a-half times the average wage. If we believe in egalitarianism and equality, why should there be such wide disparities? Of course, I did not obtain the necessary support to carry that through. [HON. MEMBERS): "Vote for amendment (a)."] I have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley because he forgot to mention it. We felt that our amendment should have been called. I know that Mr. Speaker has not got it in especially for me and my hon. Friend or anything of that kind, but we had a number of signatures and I have told my hon. Friend that we must somehow protest that we cannot agree that the amendment relating to full-time Members of Parliament should not be put to the vote. We shall therefore register a protest in that way.
  I support my hon. Friend's comments about moonlighting and all the other things that go on. There are 3 million people out of work. Yet when I looked at the register of Members' interest last week, I saw that there were more than 200 directorships, and more than 100 adviserships and consultancies and that nearly 100 hon. Members are lawyers of one kind or another, all of them—perhaps there are a few exceptions—picking up money on the side. [HON. MEMBERS: "They work for it."] We read that Members of Parliament work so hard that they must do 80 or 90 hours per week, so I do not know where they find the time to do all those other jobs.
  I remember a Conservative right hon. Member who had 27 directorships as well as describing himself as a full-time Member of Parliament. That defeats me. I do not know how they manage it. Yet the Government say that if the rest of the population will only pull up their socks and tighten their belts they can save the country. I am not prepared to tell my constituents and my class that it is their job to forgo wage increases, because they will be kidded this year just as they have been kidded before. It is the same with the old age pensioners. If Members of Parliament's salaries can be paid within a few weeks, the old age pensioners should have their increase and more besides. That is why we have put down our amendment and why we shall support the other amendment—in order to register disapproval.
  12.38 pm
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I wish to direct my remarks principally at the secretarial aspect of the motions before us and at the facilities and allowances that we receive in respect of secretaries. First, however, I wish to say something about the question of full-time Members. The greater part of the debate today seems to have been concerned with an amendment that was not selected. I suppose that that is not entirely unusual, particularly when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is speaking. The relevance of the issue before us sometimes does not find a high place in decisions about what he wants to say.
  I have several outside interests—directorships, paid and unpaid—and I find those directorships, on which I spend a very few hours a week, of immense value in fulfilling my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and other hon. Members said on that matter. I have learnt a little about the curious economic attitudes of Labour Members
  1242
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was the Minister responsible for small businesses—a very eccentric appointment. It is clear from what he said not only that he knows nothing about any sort of business—large, medium or small—but that he is not interested in learning about them. It is not surprising, therefore, in the light of the remarks that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made, that the nostrums that they produce for Britain's economy are so inappropriate and would be so disastrous if applied. Indeed, those of the hon. Member for Keighley were disastrous when he was responsible for applying them. If they knew a little more what they were talking about, perhaps they would talk a little more sense.
  Mr. Cryer: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I must point out to him that more small businesses are going to the wall under the present Government's economic policies than ever did during the period of the Labour Government. It seems as though all the wealth of the financial background of the present Government is producing not a great resurgence of entrepreneurial ability but an economic disaster.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is tempted to answer that question perhaps I may say that we ought to get back to Members' salaries.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the direct point of Members' salaries.
  Whatever one may feel about the merits or otherwise of index-linking—I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) that it is index-linking, not in relation to the RPI, but, in a sense, in relation to a basket of other salaries—it does not seem sensible, fair or possible to try to isolate the salary paid to an hon. Member from salaries and wages paid to people in all other walks of life. Looking at it from the point of view of those who may wish to follow a parliamentary career, one must ask whether it is sensible to suggest that very many of them would have to accept a major financial sacrifice if they followed that career and were elected to this place.
  Is it fair for such a family to be faced with their wage-earner coming home and saying "I have just been selected for Keighley. I shall win, because the sitting Member is so inefficient that it will be very easy to beat him. I shall then become an MP. That will mean that we shall have to give up our summer holiday, that we can no longer have that second second-hand car, and that we shall have to move to a smaller house because we shall no longer be able to afford the mortgage."
  If we are not only to attract to this House but to retain in this House people of ability who can earn substantial sums outside by reason of that ability, it is absurd to suggest that they should not be reasonably rewarded.
  I agree with those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who said that the motions introduce a salary that could not, by any justification, cause us to be called overpaid. The question is whether we are sufficiently or appropriately low paid in the circumstances. I sometimes wonder why we so far abuse the English language as to refer the salaries of MPs to what is laughingly called the Top Salaries Review Body. There is nothing remotely "top salary" about the remuneration now paid to hon. Members. I suspect that we would find many more members of Fleet Street, both on the print side and on the journalistic and

  1243
  editorial side, with higher earnings than ours. Therefore, to call this matter something that has to go before the Top Salaries Review Body is not very helpful.
  One point that worries me about the secretarial allowance is the post-Dissolution pay. We are all honourable and would hate, in error, to claim an allowance to which we were not entitled, but it is asking incredibly much of former Members, as they would be after Dissolution, to claim secretarial and research assistant allowances only in respect of work done in relation to their parliamentary duties.
  If, after Dissolution, but before the day of the general election, the hon. Member for Bolsover and I were to receive letters in similar terms from old-age pensioners seeking information on changes in pensions during the past three, four or five years, in giving such information to our prospective constituents, it seems possible that the hon. Member for Bolsover would add to his letter words very different from the words that I would add to my letter. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that his words, like mine, would carry some political overtones.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do not see how we can separate the parliamentary from the political. Indeed, in many letters there are direct parliamentary and political requests. Are we to separate a secretary's time into two parts, and say that for half the time she was being parliamentary and for the other half she was being political? If we make this arrangement, for which there is a great deal of justification, we should not try to fool ourselves that it is possible to separate the political from the parliamentary to the extent that has been suggested.
  On the broader issue, I welcome the increase in secretarial pay, but in another sense we are still ducking the major issue on secretarial pay, and, indeed, on Members' pay.
  In industry, whether in the mines or in the boardrooms, in order to determine whether a person is being appropriately rewarded, one looks not only at his pay and pension but at his working environment and arrangements. One considers the hours that he is required to work, the time that he is expected to be away from home, the amount of foreign travel that he is expected to undertake, in greater or lesser discomfort, and the extent to which he must travel round the country. In addition, one looks at the conditions in his place of work.
  I contend that hon. Members' working conditions and facilities are ludicrous. One tends to think that Ministers in successive Governments forget the facilities with which they were provided as Back Benchers. The nastier interpretation is that we are deliberately underprovided with facilities because if we had better facilities we might make ourselves more of a nuisance.
  I do not think that that is the problem. The problem arises from the historical background of the House. As has been said, not many years ago hon. Members had less responsibility for the various Committees, there was less legislation and, above all, there were fewer letters and queries from constituents and far less pressure on hon. Members to acquaint themselves with the problems of particular industries and groups, which all of us experience and which take up a great deal of our time.
  1244
  I find it extraordinary that we are not provided with an individual room in which we can work in reasonable quiet, and interview and have discussions with our constituents and others who come to see us to make representations to us, and in which we can work with our secretaries. Not only do we not have that, not only do many of us not have offices in this building—there are five other buildings, some a considerable distance away, in which Members have their offices—but, as far as I know, there are no plans to move towards making that possible.
  The position is even worse in respect of secretaries. The wretched secretaries who work for hon. Members, unlike secretaries in practically any other walk or life, are not located close to or immediately outside, or even in, the office of the person for whom they are working. Sometimes they are in a different building, often they are on a different floor, and almost always they are a considerable way away.
  The hon. Member for Battersea, South, with considerable justification, wanted it to be made easier for hon. Members to employ research assistants. I am not sure that I agree with him in thinking that every Member should have, or needs to have, a full-time research assistant, but there is a great need for research assistants, who provide a great benefit in terms of the service that we can give to our constituents. However, I do not think that it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that if there were a considerable increase in the number of research assistants there would be nowhere to put them. I have a part-time research assistant now, but she is not entitled to a desk. She has to find, as best she can, somewhere to sit.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The implication of what my hon. Friend is saying is that we had better pull down the Palace of Westminster and rebuild something in its place. Is that what he is suggesting? If it is, he should make it clear.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am not making that suggestion, but I am suggesting that when it is considering matters of remuneration, pay and pensions the House should also consider the facilities, working conditions and environment that it provides not only for Members but for those who work for us and for the servants of the House.
  Near the House there are places that could be made to provide appropriate accommodation. I recall an hon. Member once pointing out that it might be to advantage if the Treasury left Treasury Chambers and that building were made available to Members of Parliament, because it is closer to the House than where I have my office and where my secretary has her office.
  Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no need to go outside the building? The building contains many rooms that are very much underutilised—down the Corridor in the House of Lords. The abolition of the House of Lords would release a whole new area that could be much better utilised in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do not wish to be drawn into that argument, particularly as I have a paternal relation there, who might dispute any comments that I made.
  Following the hon. Gentleman's line, I point out that there is also office space at our end of the Palace of Westminster, occupied by, for example, people on the banqueting-catering side. One might well ask why they are

  1245
  given offices in the building while Members and secretaries are given offices in far less convenient places and hon. Members' research assistants are given no space whatsoever.
  It is not only the separation of our secretaries from Members that we can criticise. The working environment and the rooms in which many of them have to work are shameful. Any decent company would be appalled to provide such working conditions for its secretaries. I think of the inadequacy of the lighting, the heating, the ventilation, the space, the filing cabinets, and everything else. Every detail of the office accommodation is inadequate.
  The inadequacies of what one might describe as the staff restaurant facilities are even more apparent, in matters of location, scale and quality. In many large companies and in many large pits, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bolsover knows, the recreational facilities provided for those who work in them are very good, though I should like them to be better in some instances. I cannot say that there is much in the way of recreational facilities for those who work here. I believe that there is a rifle range somewhere, but I have never found it or discovered what goes on there. Perhaps it provides practice for those members of the Labour Party who seem so often to show a desire to shoot at each other verbally and in other ways.
  Although I welcome the Government's proposals and commend the very clear way in which my right hon. Friend presented them, I feel that we need to think beyond it, not only to find a way of avoiding having to have these dreary and misunderstood arguments every year about the way in which we calculate the appropriate level of pay for Members of Parliament, but also to try at least to have a plan for providing better working conditions for hon. Members and for the staff who work loyally for them.
  12.55 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I shall not detain the House for long. I welcome the proposals as far as they go, but the motion makes the point clearly that the Government's recommendation in May 1979 to go for a process of staging was a mistake. The independent review body has served hon. Members well, and the House has made progress in establishing that arrangement. Unfortunately, however, the Government have taken the wrong decision, and right hon. and hon. Members have lacked the confidence to override those proposals and accept Boyle in full.
  It is vital to achieve a fair salary which is reasonably comparable to that which can be earned by an able professional man or woman in the world outside, and the Boyle recommendations went a long way towards achieving that. By that, I do not suggest that the House should be filled only with hon. Members who have that professional experience outside. My point is that if that were the benchmark for parliamentary salaries, some would be elected to the House who would earn more than they had been getting outside and others would earn less. Broadly, however, it would provide a reasonable basis on which a person could decide to stand for Parliament knowing that, if elected, he could maintain a reasonable standard of living compared with the kind of job that he held outside.
  That is important if the country is to enable those who wish to follow a political career not to write it off early in
  1246
  their career plans as being outside the range of possibilities for them because of the financial sacrifice involved if they are elected. Unless we do that, we run the risk of the nation losing the potential of able people who might otherwise set out on the various stages of climbing the political ladder which are necessary long before they are ever elected here.
  We have heard much today of the sole versus the dual job argument. Following what I have said already, I believe that there will always be some who wish to do the job solely and others who wish to combine it with outside activities. The make-up of the House requires both. But, again, the salary should provide for the individual to be able to make that choice on a reasonable basis knowing that if he does only this job he will be able to maintain his family and continue to have a reasonable standard of living.
  The Select Committee to which my right hon. Friend referred, and of which I am a member, needs to move forward from the result that we have already achieved. I am greatly encouraged by the progress that appears to have been made, due to the work of a great many people over many years, to get closer to a satisfactory arrangement on pay, both in terms of the salary suggested and accepted by the House in recent years—though I believe that we have still not gone far enough—and to put a specific figure on what the salary should be now rather than what we are likely to vote for presently.
  I believe that it should be about £16,000 which is based on what Boyle recommended for the uplift of salaries in 1979. That compares with the figure quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who used the Civil Service benchmark of assistant secretary, currently at £18,000.
  I hope that the Select Committee will move from the present base, which has achieved a considerable amount in recent years, and, utilising an independent review body, be able to recommend to the House, I hope with confidence and with proper, declared and rational backing, a method to achieve the maintenance of salaries over a period of one Parliament. That would then avoid the need for this annual debate.
  I do not share the embarrassment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton about these discussions. I believe that if hon. Members cannot make rational decisions about fixing their salaries they are incapable of doing the full job. I share his concern that we should not have to do it every year, however.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I begin by agreeing with my. hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) that we have no need to feel embarrassed. We are elected to make decisions such as this, and there should be no difficulty in facing them. I agree also that our debate emphasises the fact that the phased payment was a mistake. If we are to take decisions that are seen to be difficult, we should take them boldly and with a determination to arrive at the right salary for the period of a Parliament. One could argue in mid-term about whether there should be an adjustment for rip-roaring inflation, if that should happen, but we should decide at the end of the preceding Parliament, or at the beginning of the Parliament in question, what the salary level should be, and we should stick to it. There is no way of dodging these decisions by indexation or linking our pay to that of an

  1247
  outside body. There is great debate on this issue, but I find no difficulty in taking a decision that we are elected to make.
  My main object is to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and to deal briefly with the pension arrangements for secretaries as provided for in the motion. I cannot resist the temptation, however, to discuss some of the other points that have arisen, particularly the argument about so-called full-time and part-time Members.
  We do a great disservice to the House by allowing such phraseology to gain widespread use. We malign many of our colleagues on both sides of the House if we suggest that there are part-time Members. No doubt many hon. Members are less diligent than others, irrespective of whether they have outside interests. However, virtually all Members of Parliament put in immensely long hours in performing their parliamentary duties. Those with extensive outside interests still put in what are by most people's standards excessively long hours in the course of those duties.
  One thing that I have learnt in my 11 years in the House is to have an immense respect for the abilities, the diligence and the dedication of my colleagues on both sides of the House. It gives a false impression to the public to suggest that some are part-time Members simply because they have substantial outside interests. For many hon. Members the average parliamentary day lasts for 14 or 15 hours. It starts early in the morning and continues until late at night. If some people manage to accommodate within that time outside interests, it is nevertheless clear that we are all full-time with many Members performing a considerable amount of overtime in carrying out extra services. I hope that we shall never change the arrangement of full-time Members.
  It would be invidious to pick out individual hon. Members. One needs only to consider certain individuals who serve as Chairmen of Committees and work diligently for the interests of Members, but still retain substantial outside interests. I can perhaps be invidious and refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who has been an ardent shop steward on behalf of hon. Members over pay and conditions. My right hon. Friend has been one of the most outstanding parliamentarians of this Parliament. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to see the situation changed or the House lose the services of people of that calibre. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has now returned to the Chamber I was paying him a compliment as one of our shop stewards and as a classic example of the sort of person with outside interests who is needed in the House. My right hon. Friend could never be accused of being a part-time Member.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gave the game away in his entertaining and revealing speech. His concern in trying to prevent hon. Members from having outside interests is not to try to improve parliamentary activities. He is motivated by his egalitarianism and his resentment that people should have substantial earnings. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but it has nothing to do with the argument about how we carry out our duties to our constituents or the role that we perform
  1248
  in the Chamber. I hope that for the sake of Parliament we shall never restrict ourselves by excluding those who have substantial outside interests.
  It has been argued that outside interests reduce the independence of hon. Members. A director of a company, it is said, will not exercise judgment freely and will be influenced. I hope that people are influenced by their outside interests. I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), who might be described as the other active shop steward in Members' interests, is influenced by his outside interests. The right hon. Gentleman is, I believe, a leading member of the Union of Communication Workers. I hope that his membership of the union means that he uses his knowledge of the views of the union and is influenced by them in the judgments that he makes in the House. I hope, too, that other hon. Members with commercial or trade union interests are influenced by those interests.
  It is for the House of Commons, knowing the interests of an hon. Member, to make a judgment on the argument that is advanced. The argument is not undermined by the fact that the hon. Member is remunerated or that his constituency executive is supported by a trade union interest. Nor is the argument of a barrister undermined by the fact that he receives a handsome fee for a brief. It is for hon. Members to make a judgment on the basis of the case that an hon. Member puts forward.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman referred to barristers. I speak as a lawyer. What concerns me slightly is that there sometimes seems to be a temptation in the House, particularly where the sittings of a Committee are concerned, to put the interests of a lawyer above those of the House, so that a Committee sits, for example, in the afternoon. This has serious consequences. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it tends to give the House a bad name?
  Mr. Moate: That is a procedural point that we should not pursue too far but if it means that we keep the services of barristers, it is a sensible arrangement. There must be a balance. Barristers contribute immensely to our parliamentary proceedings, and it would be unfortunate if we were to lose their services.
  I come back to the subject of trade union interests. Opposition Members cannot understand why we say that that is comparable to business interests. They say that they seldom get any direct financial reward. But if my executive were funded partially by the association secretary or the agent, or if my election expenses were met by a particular body, I should be much more under the influence of that organisation than I could ever be of any outside commercial interest that I had. If an Opposition Member were expelled by his union and the association therefore lost a major source of funds, he might find himself in some difficulty. I am not saying that Opposition Members therefore become puppets of their unions, any more than I am saying that Conservative Members become puppets of big business. I believe that hon. Members exercise their judgment freely, are independent, and are not unduly influenced by outside interests.
  I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford, and I wish to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Openshaw, who drew attention to the reaction of newspaper editors. He said that they all referred to this as a 19 per cent. increase and

  1249
  thought it indefensible. Virtually all the press and all the public, too, see this as a 19 per cent. increase, yet he and others say "It is nothing like that at all. It is the third phase of an increase to which we are entitled, plus a little more", and he can give 101 reasons to show why we are entitled to 19 per cent., but it is 19 per cent. this year. If, for one reason or another, we fudged the decision in past years, that was our fault. It makes no difference to the fact that this year we have decided to increase our salaries by 19 per cent. We cannot, on the one hand, say that we wish to be on the public stage making decisions that influence and determine public policy, and on the other say that on certain matters we wish to be out of the public eye and to be judged by the criteria of the private sector. If one wants to be paid the salary of a newspaper editor, one must get out of public life and out of the public sector, of which we are a part, and become a newspaper editor. Newspaper editors are entitled to high rates of pay and to make judgments on us when we allocate to ourselves a certain percentage pay and then tell the rest of the public sector that they must be restrained to a certain figure. We are told that Members of Parliament restrained themselves last year, the year before that, and the year before that. Have we not been saying to the public sector—and, indeed, to the private sector—that we want pay restraint in 1979, 1980 and 1981? We are not saying to them in 1981 that because of their past restraint they can now catch up. We are saying "Please restrain yourselves further", and I think that we shall be saying that in 1982. If we want restraint in the public sector, we should set an example.
  It is wrong for us to assume that we can take decisions of the kind that we are being asked to take today without being aware of the damage that they will do to our position in the pay negotiations in the public sector. I do not criticise my right hon. Friend in any way for bringing forward these proposals. He is carrying out his duties and obligations to the House of Commons, and I accept that. However, it is our decision, not the Government's. Therefore, it can only help if we accept the third phase of the previously negotiated amount passed by the House of Commons. I suspect that no motion is necessary for that, but let us at least try to contribute something by saying that we shall forgo the other 6 per cent., which even then will leave us with a handsome increase in our salaries this year.
  The motion allows exactly 10 per cent. of the total secretarial allowance to be expended on pensions for secretaries. It is in the same form as the one that we had last year, when an upper limit was set on the amount of money that could be expended on secretaries' pensions. It is a measure that I greatly welcome. We have been very hard on our secretaries, who have given many years of service to individual Members in what is basically non-pensionable employment. Last year the House wisely decided to make provision for them, but in practice the scheme has not worked out as intended.
  I asked my right hon. Friend how much money could have been spent on secretaries' pensions in accordance with the resolution of the House of Commons. It appears that we could have spent £500,000 to cover pension arrangements for the secretaries of all hon. Members, but in practice we spent £143,000—just under one-third of the amount. I suggest that we are being singularly mean to many of our secretaries. Whatever we decide about our own pay, I do not think that any of us can be proud of the suggestion that we are being unfair to our secretaries, who deserve to have good pension arrangements.
  1250
  There could be many reasons for it. One of the reasons is that my right hon. Friend, or his predecessor, after consultation with others, decided that there should be an inner limit and that no secretary should receive more than 10 per cent., by way of pension contribution, of the amount paid to her in salary. In practice, most secretariesmay be paid perhaps £5,000 or £6,000 of the £8,000 allowance. That means that in practice only £500 or £600 can be paid.
  No such inner limit was ever established by the House of Commons. It was established by consultation by the authorities of the House and by my right hon. Friend. It is an unfair limit. The House of Commons has never said that that is what it should be. I agree that any limit is arbitrary, but we could use as a better arbitrary limit that which is applied to self-employed persons, which is 17½ per cent. In the amendment that I tabled, which is not being discussed today, I suggested 15 per cent. In practice, the figure on which we voted, and on which we are voting again today, cannot be spent.
  My right hon. Friend may say that he is carrying out the intentions of the House and that there were some discussions that could be interpreted in that way, but in practice it is impossible to do so. If an hon. Member wished to pay his secretary £8,000, nearly £1,000 of that would go on the employer's contribution. Therefore, £7,000 is about the limit.
  We are, in effect, debating a motion which, by administrative decree, cannot be implemented. My right hon. Friend was very fair about it. He said that he would refer the matter to the Top Salaries Review Body, and lie did so. Unfortunately, the review body said that it did not have enough time and would need to reconsider the matter. But in the nature of things it will not be able to reconsider it until next year. That means that the secretaries will have lost two years of pension contribution. That could make a great deal of difference to their ultimate pension rights.
  Having accepted my right hon. Friend's helpful initial move to put the matter to the review body, I suggest that some other way should be found in the coming year to review the decision. I do not think that 10 per cent. is fair; 15 per cent. would be fairer. 'We are depriving secretaries of pension rights. We are not carrying out the intentions of the House as expressed in the motion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find some opportunity, within the next 12 months, to allow a decision to be reached to improve the rights of secretaries so that we do not lose yet another year, because it could do considerable damage 1:0 the ultimate pension rights of these worthy servants of Members and of the House of Commons.
  1.20 pm
  Mr. Pym: For about four hours we have had an interesting debate on an important subject. Some of the points raised have gone wider than the motions before the House. Most of the debate has concentrated on the issues underlying the nature of a Member of Parliament's function and role, the support that he might require—or be entitled to—to enable him to fulfil his function, and how remuneration should be settled. In addition more detailed points were raised, which I shall consider at the conclusion of the debate.
  There has been broad agreement on the Government's approach to pay, but there are two groups of amendments to deal with. The first amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr.

  1251
  Bruce-Gardyne) deals directly with the general level of salaries. There has been talk—particularly from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris)—about restraint and self-denial. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) thought that Members of Parliament were still underpaid but that Ministers were even less well paid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford thought that hon. Members would be paid too much and that the inevitable interpretation of our actions by the press was adequate reason for not increasing salaries by the amount suggested. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) thought, in some curious way, that any remuneration above average industrial earnings would have something unsatisfactory about it. He also thought that Ministers should be paid the same as hon. Members. He did not find any support for those propositions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that hon. Members should be underpaid. I have a great sympathy with the spirit of his remarks, but one must define "a satisfactory level of payment" and "underpayment". Successive Governments found that the techniques and method of the Top Salaries Review Body contained a sensible approach. I am grateful to it for what it has done for us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, it has served the House well. Since 1972, when the then Conservative Government decided to go all the way and to agree its recommendations immediately, that original sensible practice has not been followed.
  The House must make a decision. The Government have made a proposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford has put forward an alternative with the support of several of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was right. If hon. Members had wanted £13,150 there would have been no need for me to table a motion. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House are "full-time" Members of Parliament and have no other sources of income. They rely entirely on their salaries and are in considerable financial difficulties because of the cost of their work. Although that does not apply to everyone, it is important to ensure that there is adequate remuneration. However, that is a matter for the House to decide.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: With great respect, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was wrong. He argued that if the amendment had not been moved and the first motion on the Order Paper had been voted against, we should have been voting against not only the sum of £13,950 but also against £8,130 for Officers of the House, which the amendment does not deal with. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong.
  Mr. Pym: There has been much discussion this morning about whole-time Members of Parliament, by which was meant the exclusion from their lives and work of outside interests. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) was the first to raise that subject. He thought that it was better for constituents if their Member did nothing else. The hon. Member for Keighley thought that the public expected their Members to do nothing else and wanted full-time committed Members. This would be a
  1252
  fantastically dull place if we took that advice. I cannot think what the House would be like if we followed that example.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the American Congress a fantastically dull place, because that body has that ruling?
  Mr. Pym: I will discuss that in a moment. There is no assembly in the world as lively or exciting as this place.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said that professional Members of Parliament—by which he meant those without outside interests—must not be allowed to dominate. I agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said that all Members should have outside interests. However, that ideal is not likely to be achieved. He said that if that were so we could manage with fewer Members of Parliament. I have much sympathy with that point of view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking attacked the concept of full-time Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) spoke of the value of his outside experience, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). I agree with that attitude, because we are elected to use our judgment on behalf of our constituents and our country. To give a fair and wise judgment on the issues of the day, those who have outside interests and knowledge are in a better position to gain current experience in the ordinary world outside. It must be an advantage to them, the House and the nation when that experience is brought to bear here.
  A Member's job is not an executive task. It is often thought outside that we are some sort of executive body, but we are not. Parliament is a scrutinising body and we ask Members of Parliament to have the responsibility of bringing their judgment to it. Although it is helpful that some Members do not wish to do that or cannot do that—although they devote much time to their work in the House—the fact that so many have other outside interests is of enormous help to the work of the House.
  A Member's salary for this year, next year or the ensuing year is always to recompense him for what amounts to a full-time job. Some right hon. and hon. Members are doing more than a whole—time job—in some cases at least two or three whole-time jobs. If they are fortunate enough to be able to do that, wish to do it and have the opportunity to do it, we must allow them to do it. It is a plus for the House. We all represent the nation here with all its different varieties, characters, natures and experiences. We can do that only by allowing Members to lead wide and full lives.
  The salary that I am recommending in the motion is appropriate for the work done by an hon. Member. I hope that the House will support it.
  Much has been said about facilities and support services, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and others described as inadequate. That is outside the scope of the motion, but I want to see a general improvement over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove referred to working conditions, but that involves a new parliamentary building, which at present raises many difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Battersea, South in his series of amendments argued that the more support one has, the more effective and active one can be. I doubt whether that is so. The hon. Gentleman's amendments try to separate

  1253
  the secretarial allowance and research assistance allowance and make it possible for hon. Members to have both. That is a respectable proposition, but it would cost about £4 million a year and would involve an increase of 64 per cent. in the allowances available to hon. Members. That is an awful lot.
  With respect to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), I do not believe that comparisons with Congress are appropriate. The circumstances of the United States and its style of parliamentary government are so different that it is not helpful to make comparisons.
  The hon. Member for Battersea, South paid tribute to the Library service available to hon. Members. I have no doubt that that is adequate for the needs of most Members. If a research assistant can be justified in some cases, perhaps we should try to find a way of providing one, but that will not be easy.
  I ask the House not to support the amendments of the hon. Member for Battersea, South. The cost involved is enormous and many hon. Members do not want that degree of added assistance. Not many would go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford who said that every hon. Member would be better able to do his job without any help. There are a few, including my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who are capable of doing the job without any help, but many others would have difficulty in making the fullest use of their opportunities without a little professional assistance.
  A number of points were made about the methods of settling our remuneration. The hon. Member for Battersea, South said at first that he wanted index linking, but he revised that aim later and said that he wanted a linkage with an outside body, group or salary. The hon. Gentleman said that it was invidious for the House to vote on hon. Members' salaries. I do not believe that it is invidious; it is inescapable. Linkage might assist the process, but it will still be up to the House to make the final decision and I do not see how we can escape that responsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford was strongly opposed to linkage and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) was against what he described as continuing adjustments, which are embarrassing and tedious. There was support for the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that an arrangement should be made once in the lifetime of each Parliament. My right hon. Friend said that it should be done at the beginning of a Parliament, but he accepted that it could be done at the end, as suggested by my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and Sutton.
  In those circumstances, the conditions would be fixed and candidates at the election would know the bargain and could stick to it for the rest of the Parliament. There is a great deal to be said for that. It was hoped during the previous Parliament that such a system could be arranged for this Parliament, but that has not happened and we have to face the situation as it is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo made a good point when he said that one could end up with an unrealistic situation in the later stages of a five-year Parliament. If inflation were serious and no adjustments were made to salaries, some hon. Members could face difficult problems after three or four years of a Parliament.
  1254
  That matter is being considered by the Select Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks for mentioning that and to all the hon. Members serving on that Committee. The next stage in the development of the policy for settling Members' pay must depend initially on what the Select Committee recommends.
  Hon. Members made a number of detailed points on which I will not comment at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford referred to the ratio between salaries and allowances within the total sums received by Members of Parliament over the past year. Basically, the answer is "50–50", but I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend about that. I mentioned in opening the question of secretaries' pensions. Nevertheless, I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove raised the important question of how we are to stick to the rules during a Dissolution. I agree that it will be difficult, but I do not think that we should allow the difficulties to prevent us from doing it because there is a good deal of demand for it and a good deal of sense in it. Here, I would connect my hon. Friend's anxiety with a point correctly made by the hon. Member for Battersea, South that the accountability of these allowances must be as great as it possibly can be.
  The right hon. Member for Openshaw raised, first, the question of the substitution of secretaries and the availability of pay for them. That is precisely the proposal that the Government have accepted and I shall be discussing the details through the usual channels. With regard to the point about office equipment, I have not rejected this out of hand, but I warn the House that I think that it will be quite difficult and certainly expensive. Security and other problems arise, but naturally its feasibility can be considered. Also, possibly at another stage—it is not relevant to the motions today—travel allowance for Members' children could also be considered.
  In an intervention in my speech, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who is not now present, asked whether I could compare average earnings with the 1972 review body situation. As I said in opening, since 1972 when our remuneration was adjusted fully in the terms used by the review body, prices have risen by 246 per cent. and Members' pay by 210 per cent. Average earnings over the same period have risen by 297 per cent. There is therefore still considerable underpayment if one regards absolute inflation-proofing as being full compensation for rising prices.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking wisely said that we ought to be underpaid and be seen to be underpaid. I should have thought that those figures were evidence for the fact that, even if—and, I hope, when—my motions are agreed today, his request will have been fulfilled and will be seen to have been fulfilled. My hon. Friend rightly said that to be a Member of Parliament is an entirely voluntary exercise. I completely agree with him. For that matter, of course, the salary of a Member of Parliament is also a voluntary exercise. I as Leader of the House must think, as the Government must think, of our responsibility for all Members of Parliament, not only for those who are disadvantaged or those who can manage whether they have a salary or not. We must think of the generality of the matter.

  1255
  In our view, the figure that we have arrived at, now that the staging is at last completed, is in the current circumstances an appropriate remuneration for Members of Parliament and Ministers in relation to their responsibilities in the House. I hope, therefore, that after this interesting debate the House will feel it right to approve the motions on the Order Paper in my name.
  1.39 pm
  Mr. Clinton Davis: We have until 2.30 pm, so there is no reason why hon. Members who wish to participate but who could not be here previously should not do so, despite, the activities of the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).
  I thought that the speech of the Leader of the House was a balanced one, and in many respects deserving of support. I had some reservation, however, about his suggestion that there is no assembly in the whole of the rest of the world to be compared with this one for excitement. I found that a little exaggerated.
  The argument about outside interests is very difficult. There are assemblies in the world where it is required that a Member should give up his outside interests altogether. That is not the case here. I believe that the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was also exaggerated. The paramount test should be how a Member of Parliament performs his duties. Clearly his outside interests should not be allowed to impinge on his parliamentary activities.
  My intervention will be brief. I have some reservations, which follow from my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I believe that sometimes outside interests appear to be a paramount rather than a subordinate concern. That particularly affects Members who are of the other branch of my profession.
  It is quite wrong that Committees should be required—this is not simply a procedural point—to sit in the afternoon in order to accomodate the interests of members of the legal profession. [Interruption.] I have been in the Chamber for the last hour and a half and have heard the arguments. Unfortunately, I was detained elsewhere at the beginning of the debate and could not be present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Knutsford. I was not engaged in outside activities. I was involved with some of my constituents, and it was important that I should see them. I apologise to the hon. Member for Knutsford for not being present to hear his remarks.
  However, I am perfectly entitled to say that the sort of situation that arises—as with the Criminal Attempts Bill—tends to give Parliament a bad name. It is wrong that lawyers, because they wish to be in court, do not feel that they can come to the House of Commons and participate in debates at the usual hours during which our Committees sit. The interests of Parliament should not be subordinated in that respect to those outside activities.
  Mr. Speaker: Although I, too, did not have the good fortune to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I know that the hon. Gentleman is going too far from the motions on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Davis: I hope that I am not offending the rules of the debate, Mr. Speaker, but a good part of it has related
  1256
  to the question of the pay that Members of Parliament receive and how consistent it is to receive pay from outside activities coupled with that received in this place. Therefore, the question of outside interests—to which the Leader of the House also referred—is not without relevance to the debate.
  Members of Parliament must give credence to the convenience of those who are not members of their profession. Some hon. Members can be seriously inconvenienced by having to sit in a Committee in the afternoons only, rather than in the mornings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) referred to research facilities. I believe that the facilities that are available to us are hopelessly inadequate. If one has to employ a full-time secretary at the going outside rate, it follows that with the allowance that one receives here it is not possible to employ a researcher alone at a reasonable salary, even if one does so jointly with another hon. Member. When the Leader of the House says that my hon. Friend's proposal would cost about £4 million, I wonder whether it would be possible to achieve a compromise in this regard.
  If it were possible to devise a system whereby one could share a researcher with somebody else, so that the researcher could be provided with a reasonable salary, it would not cost anything like the £4 million suggested—perhaps to some extent plucked out of the air—by the Leader of the House.
  Many Opposition Front Bench spokesmen—this affects all Oppositions, whether Labour or Conservative—need much greater research facilities. It is not possible simply to rely on the Library facilities. I pay tribute to the staff in the Library, because they do a remarkable job, but it must take them time to accommodate to the needs not only of Front Benchers but Back Benchers.
  When dealing with complicated matters—in my case, company law and insurance, and other technical matters—the absence of any adequate research facility is an impediment. The Leader of the House should pay more attention to that aspect. The right hon. Gentleman was fair, because he said that he would consider these matters. I hope that I am not misquoting him. However, research is a fundamental part of carrying out one's job efficiently and adequately.
  The Leader of the House presented a balanced view, but I sincerely hope that he will reflect further on the question of research facilities, which in my judgment are an important factor in enabling a Member to undertake his work properly. Proper research facilities will help hon. Members to perform their duty, particularly in respect of technical subjects, rather better than is currently possible without such facilities.
  1.47 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intend to speak for only a minute and a half, having listened to the debate for the past hour and a half.
  I hope that the Leader of the House, the Select Committee and the Top Salaries Review Body will recognise that we are deciding not the appropriate salary for a Member of Parliament but an appropriate increase.
  We need to take three steps. The first is to decide, not at the end of a Parliament but two years after the beginning of a Parliament, the appropriate salary for the beginning

  1257
  of a future Parliament. We cannot leave it until the last year of a Parliament, because we do not know when the general election will take place.
  Secondly, we should have an undertaking from the Government in future—it is too late today—that the review body's report will be put before the House, if necessary with a Government amendment. However, we should insist that the review body's report is put before us so that we may vote on it directly.
  Thirdly, we should deal with reviews during a Parliament by deciding well in advance whether we should take half the general rate of increase in earnings. I think that that would solve all the problems facing us. I hope that we would then achieve a general level of pay for hon. Members roughly equivalent to the pay of general practitioners.
  Amendment proposed: (a) leave out '13,950' and insert 13,150 —[Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 137.

  Division No. 206]

  [1.48 pm

  AYES

  Buck, Antony

  Stainton, Keith

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

  Wickenden, Keith

  Cryer, Bob

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Roger Moate and

  Porter, Barry

  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne.

  Skinner, Dennis

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

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

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Baker, Kenneth.(St.M'bone)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Banks, Robert

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Blackburn, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Blaker, Peter

  Hooson, Tom

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

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

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

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

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Lamont, Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Lang, Ian

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

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Luce, Richard

  Corrie, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  MacGregor, John

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

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dubs, Alfred

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Eggar, Tim

  Major, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mather, Carol

  Forman, Nigel

  Mellor, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Fry, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moore, John

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Ginsburg, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Greenway, Harry

  Parker, John

  Grist, Ian

  Parkinson, Cecil

  1258

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, Donald

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  van Straubenzee, W. R

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Raison, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Tim

  Ward, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wheeler, John

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Whitlock, William

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Williams, D (Montgomery)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Silvester, Fred

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sims, Roger

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Stanley, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)

  and Mr. John Wakeham.

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1981 should be at the following yearly rates—

  (1) £13,950 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and

  (2) £8,130 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.

  Members' Salaries
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1981 shall be at the following yearly rates—

  (1) £13,950 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and

  (2) £8,130 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 —[Mr. Pym]

  Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance
  Moton made, and Question proposed,
  That, in the opinion of this House—

  (a) the limit on the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his parliamentary duties as general office expenses, on secretarial assistance and on research assistance should be £8,384 for the year ending 31st March 1982 and £8,480 for any subsequent year; and

  (b) provision should be made to enable each Meber in receipt of the allowance to contribute sums, not exceeding in the year ending 31st March 1982 £838 and in any subsequent year £848, to an approved pension scheme for the provision of pensions or other benefits for or in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him; and

  (c) provision should be made under arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker to enable a Member in receipt of the allowance to incur further expenses for his parliamentary duties by obtaining temporary secretarial or research

  1259
  assistance while a person to whom a salary is paid by him is prevented through illness from providing such assistance.

  For the purposes of this resolution expenses which, at a time when Parliament is dissolved, are incurred in connection with his former or prospective parliamentary duties by a person who was a Member immediately before the dissolution shall be treated as incurred by him as a Member and for his parliamentary duties.—[Mr. Pym.]
  Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (a) leave out "the limit on"—[Mr. Dubs.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 116.

  Division No. 207]

  [2.00pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Pendry, Tom

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Race, Reg

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

  Richardson, Jo

  Cryer, Bob

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Dubs, Alfred

  Whitlock, William

  Field, Frank

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon and

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley

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

  NOES

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Banks, Robert

  Ginsburg, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Greenway, Harry

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Blackburn, John

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Blaker, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Henderson, Barry

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hooson, Tom

  Buck, Antony

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)

  Butcher, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

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

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Lamont, Norman

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lang, Ian

  Corrie, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Luce, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  MacGregor, John

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  1260

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Major, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sims, Roger

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mather, Carol

  Stanley, John

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Monro, Hector

  Tebbit, Norman

  Moore, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nelson, Anthony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Neubert, Michael

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wakeham, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Waller, Gary

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Ward, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Wheeler, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wilkinson, John

  Renton, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Scott, Nicholas

  and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.

  Ministerial and Other Salaries
  Resolved,
  That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 1 June be approved.—[Mr. Pym.]

  FIFTH STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, & c.), the Chairman shall put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Customs Duties (Quota Relief) (Paper, Paperboard and Printed Products) Order 1980, if not previously concluded, when the Committee shall have sat for two and a half hours.—[Mr. Pym.]

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Bowen Wells be added to the Committee.—[Sir Albert Costain, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  British Leyland (Wellingborough Foundry)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  2.11 pm
  Mr. Peter Fry: British Leyland's decision to close its foundry at Wellingborough came not only as a shock to its loyal and hard-working labour force, but as a body blow to employment prospects and morale in the town and surrounding areas. The House is entitled to know the background to this decision.
  In my view, this foundry is unique in the BL group. The quality of castings produced has been consistently better than that produced by all the other BL foundries. Wellingborough is the company's only foundry which successfully attained the company's standard DEF 05.21.
  Secondly, labour relations in the plant have been and still are excellent. When other parts of the BL empire were stopped by industrial activity, the workers at Wellingborough kept going. Incidentally, I wonder whether that is one of the reasons why BL chose Wellingborough for the chop, knowing that the workers there are not so likely to be as bloody-minded or militant as others in the group.
  Thirdly, the foundry has been and still is profitable. The current figures that have been given to me show that it is running at a yearly rate of profit of over £300,000. That may not seem an enormous amount of money, but put in the context of the fact that BL foundries as a whole make a substantial loss, it is a lot for Wellingborough. For example, work is being transferred to the Beans foundry at Tipton. The figures that I have been given suggest that that foundry lost no less than £7 million last year, and is likely to lose £3 million this year.
  Fourthly, in competition with independent foundries, Wellingborough has an excellent record of supplying outside firms such as Perkins Engines and Petters Engines. Unfortunately, during the last year or so, it appears that the BL management has not allowed Wellingborough to quote for certain work which has gone elsewhere. I do not doubt that if it had had the chance, Wellingborough's quality and efficiency would have brought it even higher profit.
  Yet, despite those four facts, the plant is to be closed by a decision of the BL board. The head of the company in the group controlling Wellingborough visited it recently. He came to the foundries and described the site as a museum. If it is, it has been made a museum by the mismanagement of British Leyland and by the lack of investment over the years. Yet this so-called museum has a record which, if mirrored throughout the BL empire, would not have necessitated the vast input of public money that has been necessary to keep that concern afloat.
  Those who are always demanding more public investment in industry should reflect on what it has meant in my constituency—the closing of a place of work to which many have dedicated their lives, displaying moderation, high standards and hard work, which have been flung back in their faces. No wonder they are bitter, and I share their bitterness. The name of BL is a dirty one in my constituency. I for one should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend that I shall never again vote for any more public money to go to such a concern.
  1262
  Some may ask why the loss of some 600 jobs—not huge in' comparison with other closures in the country—has been so significant and is so badly felt. The answer is a varied one. The Wellingborough and Rushton area has traditionally had two old-established industries—footwear and leather, and clothing. The footwear industry is in severe recession, and 20 per cent. of the jobs in the industry in the county have gone in the last 12 months. Both footwear and clothing have been suffering from foreign competition, much of it unfair competition, and much of it, unfortunately, within the EEC.
  How am I to explain to those who have lost or who are losing their jobs because of Italian competition—perhaps due to child labour or other disreputable procedures—that shoes can flood into this country but British clothing exports to Italy are held up by an import 'deposit scheme?
  Many of my constituents are out of work or threatened by the inability of this Government or previous Governments to give the protection that is needed to ensure fair trade. The abrogation of responsibility by giving up powers to the European Commission in Brussels has only compounded the problem.
  The area has not simply sat back and let events overtake it. Attempts have been made over the years at self-help. Wellingborough entered into an agreement with the GLC to take people and firms that would move. Unfortunately, whereas most of the people remain, not all the firms have survived.
  Only in the last week or two the closure of the Alcan double glazing factories in the area was announced, yet the pressure for jobs increases. Although in many parts of the country the school population is dropping fast, that is not so in the Wellingborough area. This year some 1,724 school leavers will come on to the labour market Next year the number will increase to 1,769. In 1983, it will go up to 1,822, and in 1984 the number will increase further still, to 1,855. These figures cause me real concern. In comparison even with nearby towns in the county they show that Wellingborough has a significant increase, whereas the others remain fairly constant.
  In terms of training opportunities available, the position is even worse. In engineering there were 26 apprenticeships last year and only five this year. In the motor trade there were 12 apprenticeships last year and only one this year. In the building trade there were 48 apprenticeships last year and only five this year.
  Of seven people who went on the engineering training board apprenticeship scheme, not one has found a place to continue his apprenticeship. No fewer than 60 young apprentices were made redundant last year in the constituency as a whole. In the recent Manpower Services Commission paper on training initiatives, the Government are still putting responsibility for training apprentices on to the companies. If these now have to close, how can the apprentices be trained? One of the problems is that, of the apprentices who were made redundant, some were in their third year, their last year of training.
  Wellingborough can now offer only 20 per cent. of what it could offer in the past for would-be apprentices. In May 1980 33 people were engaged in the youth opportunities programme. In May this year the figure had risen to 191. These statistics show clearly that, whereas the position at the moment may not appear to be as bad as in other parts of the country, it is deteriorating and will get considerably worse.

  1263
  What are Wellingborough's chances of attracting new industry? Leaving aside the recession, which is bad enough, we have nearby the large developments at Northampton, Peterborough and Milton Keynes, all attracting new firms. Corby receives tremendous help from the EEC and an enterprise zone will be created. What hope can there be for Wellingborough without some assistance to help it to compete with those areas?
  The chief executive of Wellingborough council wrote to me as follows:
  "With the decline of the footwear and clothing industries, this closure"—
  of the foundry
  "would virtually mark the end of the end of the town's traditional industries. There is also news of other closures …
  With the unusually high number of school leavers … and the Foundry closure, an overall unemployment rate of about 15% is projected by September. The rate for men is expected to be as high as 17½⁑."
  I believe that he has underestimated the effect on male unemployment.
  What can be done? First, is the closure inevitable and essential? I accept that some cut in the productive capacity of the BL foundry is needed, but why at Wellingborough? Will the Department of Industry satisfy itself that BL is making the right decision? After all, BL could not do anything without the public money that is injected into it. Secondly, I should like to see whether the foundry could be retained in production. Is there any possibility that some operations could be continued on a co-operative or new limited company basis? I am asking that a feasibility study be done to see whether Wellingborough's high standards of work and expertise can continue to attract outside work.
  I have obtained a promise from BL's management that no capital plant will be moved until September. It will also consider any scheme for the future of the site and the plant. If any viable scheme can be put together I hope that Government assistance, perhaps through the NEB, will be available. More help is needed. Again, I shall refer to the council's letter. The chief executive wrote:
  "The Council would also like to have your support in seeking special help through an approach to the Secretary of State for Industry for Assisted Area status to help them in attracting new jobs in competition with Northampton, Peterborough and Corby. They also feel there is a need for special help for the unemployed in the town generally with retraining and rehabilitation facilities."
  However, retraining schemes alone are not enough. It is essential that those who have been trained should be able to find jobs. Recently, some young people have experienced frustration in that respect.
  I hope that I have said enough to show that the problems of this patch of Britain deserve the Government's consideration. I stress that those who are suffering are not those who usually hit the headlines. They do not usually take any extreme action. If moderation in pay demands, good labour relations, hard work and good standards are supposed to be rewarded, my constituents want to know why so many of them are suffering. I have little faith that we shall get much change from BL's management. I had little faith in its predecessors and that lack of faith has, unfortunately, been only too well justified. BL has not lived up to its responsibilities to its work force at
  1264
  Wellingborough. As the Government stand behind BL, it is their job to pick up those responsibilities and to show that they are more responsive.
  Does my hon. Friend want my constituents to join those traditionally militant groups in other parts of the country who cause trouble? I hope not. If that, and the creation of a new depressed area is to be avoided, he must offer some hope and some sign that the Government understand and will try to help. No one—let alone myself—expects the Government to wave a magic wand and to create wonderful new opportunities overnight.
  The people of Wellingborough deserve what help can be provided. It is my duty and responsibility to ask for it. If they do not get help and there is no assistance through the traditional footwear and clothing industries, no extra opportunities created for those out of work and those coming on to the labour market, it will be felt that the traditional good qualities of the area have gone unrecognised.
  My constituents are looking to the Government for hope for the better future that their past record deserves.
  2.25 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for the way in which he marshalled his arguments. The House is aware of his assidious work on behalf of his constituency. It is typical of him that he has seized an early opportunity to raise this subject. He has other meetings planned. I am not sure how far he has gone public on those, but this is part of a continuing process in seeking to explore these matters. He will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has heard his remarks, which are relevant to the additional discussions that my hon. Friend has in mind.
  In raising this important issue for his constituency my hon. Friend raises issues that are of great significance in the wider context of British Leyland. He has sought to emphasise the fact that the foundry closure at Wellingborough cannot be taken in isolation. It raises questions of the foundry capacity of BL, which in turn is related to the wider considerations of the market and the future of British Leyland. I shall deal with the matter in detail because it is important that my hon. Friend is satisfied that it is seen as part of a coherent policy on the part of BL. I share the regret that this closure is seen as necessary. I do not say that idly, because my hon. Friend knows of my sincere interest in the activity having been involved in working foundries in years past. I know of the importance that the foundry has had in his constituency and in a wider industrial context.
  It is true that what we have seen is the consequence of policies which have been adopted in the past and which have used public money to protect industries from the wider realities of the industrial situation. Overall, there is no question that this part of the industry has become inefficient and uncompetitive. It is suffering from high prices, problems with quality and productivity and is too burdened with fixed costs and manpower. There are many reasons for what has happened, but it is clear that this company, perhaps above all others, is like a litmus test of the degree to which we seek a more competitive industrial base. That inevitably means that a number of painful decisions must be taken. In the wider context, it is the only course that will enable our industries to offer more secure employment in the long term.

  1265
  In British Leyland's case, the remedies involve the contraction and closure of certain activities as well as increased investment in plant and machinery to enable the company efficiently to manufacture products which can compete in the market place. The Government have shown themselves able and willing to help in the transition to higher productivity and greater competitiveness. My hon. Friend will be aware of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on 26 January, when it was agreed that the Government would provide BL with £990 million between 1981 and 1983. That is a massive sum and will be used, as I have described, both for new investment and to facilitate the necessary restructuring.
  Of course, the Government have not agreed to funding on that scale without good reason. There has been a marked improvement in BL's performance over the past year or so in several important spheres. For example, productivity improved by about 10 per cent. over the company as a whole in 1980, and productivity on the Metro lines, taking the benefit of the new investment there, is more than comparable with that achieved by BL's European competitors.
  There are other tangible aspects of the new sense of realism among the BL work force. For three years running workers have accepted wage increases well below the prevailing rate of inflation.
  It being half-past Two o' clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]
  Mr. Marshall: The work force has settled down to long periods of steady work, unmarked by the disruption of strike action. In 1980 less than 2 per cent. of working time was lost due to strike action across BL as a whole and there were areas where virtually no strikes occurred, and during that time investment in the company has not stood still.
  New plants have been built and commissioned for the Metro at Longbridge and for the T45 truck range at Leyland. In recent months the Metro has achieved a market share of 9 to 10 per cent., with an average of over 8 per cent. so far this year. Its influence has been felt throughout the range, with the share of the market running at about 25 per cent. above the 1980 figure.
  On the truck side, despite the depressing effect of a market in severe recession, the T45 truck has halted the decline in BL's share of the market. There are three models in the T45 range, with a total of 9 or 10 derivatives. Both the T45 and the Metro have been well received abroad, and initial demand from Europe for the Metro in particular is encouraging.
  Those two models were made possible by the years of funding for BL since 1945, involving, as we must recall, extremely large sums of money. The further funding that we have approved for BL will continue that trend. For example, there is to be the launch of the Triumph Acclaim, the result of the collaboration with Honda, in the autumn, and the development of the LC10 medium-sized family car to be introduced at the end of 1983.
  The Government have recently given approval to the new Jaguar XJ40 programme. Expansion at Solihull on the Range Rover and Land Rover facilities continues, as do all the other aspects of capital expenditure that are necessary in a company the size of BL.
  1266
  My hon. Friend may ask how that broad framework is to affect Wellingborough. Because of the seriousness with which my hon. Friend approached the subject it has been right for me to put my reply in the wider context, and my hon. Friend will appreciate the significance of my taking the opportunity to review the state of BL, about which there is great interest.
  Investment in BL had to be accompanied by closures to achieve the necessary rev italisation of the company. It would make no sense—indeed it would be counterproductive—to provide public money for investment without allowing it to be used for restructuring if, as in BL's case, that is essential for the restoration of the company's competitiveness. In the longer term, that strategy will enable the company to become competitive and hence will remove the burden of funding from the taxpayer as well as offer the best chance of secure employment and growth in the future.
  I must refer to the future. Greater productivity, better products, and better utilisation of capacity are all necessary if BL is to achieve profitability. Indeed, they are all integral parts of the company's 1981 corporate plan, which mapped out the route to viability and on the basis of which Government funding was provided. However, having taken the strategic funding decision, and while monitoring the company's performance, the Government do not involve themselves in the management of BL. That is the task of the BL board and those whom it appoints. If the BL management and the board need to make adjustments to the detail of the plan to remain on route to the ultimate objective—profitability and independence of Government funding—they must do so, however difficult the decision involved.
  It was on that basis that BL decided that further closures were necessary to keep the company on course. I know that these decisions are painful, following as they do the demanning and closures already undergone in BL. It is, after all, hard on the employees of BL to have to envisage further redundancies after the 58,000 that have occurred over the past three years. Speaking this afternoon, I, as much as anyone, would wish that further redundancies and closures were not necessary, but the BL board shares the Government's objective of removing BL from its existing dependence on the taxpayer, and it has concluded that further closures are necessary for the achievement of that objective. We should get nowhere if we challenged that decision. We cannot dodge decisions of that kind, taken in pursuit of necessary objectives.
  It is sometimes argued that Government money should be used to retain jobs, although my hon. Friend did not make that the burden of his argument. I have explained the use to which the existing funding of BL is to be put. It would be no solution to divert that or to pump in more money to retain jobs. Those jobs would simply be bought at the expense of higher inflation and unemployment. The Government's job remains, first and foremost, to bring down the level of inflation in order to make our industry competitve in world markets. The Government's role is not to buy jobs, but to enable jobs to be created that will pay for themselves.
  There will have to be a period of adjustment for BL before it can achieve profitability and remove its dependence on the taxpayer. We are therefore unable-indeed, we think that it would be wrong—to subsidise uneconomic activity. That would not be in the longer-term interests of taxpayers or of industry as a

  1267
  whole. We recognise, however, that hardship can be caused during such a period of transition, although we believe that there is no realistic alternative to the strategy that I have described, we recognise that the achievement of a successful and competitive industrial sector in the longer term may appear insufficient comfort to those adversely affected in the short term. I therefore appreciate that, although commercially important for the future of BL and the majority of its employees, the closure of the foundry at Wellingborough will have harsh effects on the town and its inhabitants. My hon. Friend therefore rightly points out the wider effects on Wellingborough of the loss of one of its major employers. Such effects have to be placed fully in the local industrial context. It would therefore, I think, be helpful if I consider the recent history of Wellingborough as seen from the Department of Industry and in response to a number of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
  In the 1960s Wellingborough was considered to be one of the growth points of the East Midlands. At a time when the various new towns such as Peterborough, Corby and Milton Keynes were coming into being, Wellingborough chose to become an expanding town through an overspill agreement in 1967 with the GLC, to which my hon. Friend referred. The idea was to provide both homes and jobs for Londoners who wished to start a new life away from the city. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that as an expanding town Wellingborough has chalked up a number of considerable successes. It has not expanded at the rate originally and perhaps optimistically envisaged, but it has succeeded in providing new employment opportunities in pace with its expansion. A measure of that success is that up to March 1980 Wellingborough had an unemployment rate consistently below the regional average. This has, of course, been achieved by attracting over the years a wide variety of new firms, often from London.
  The industrial expansion that has accompanied Wellingborough's population expansion has been of tremendous benefit and it has diversified the industrial base. From a town, like so many in the East Midlands, dependent formerly on iron ore, and lately on the clothing and boot and shoe industries, Wellingborough has become the source of a diversity of products ranging from printed matter, plastics, telephone engineering, motor engineering, garment making, large-scale meat processing, joinery and furniture to upholstery. I recognise that it is still substantially dependent upon clothing and footwear, but a healthy diverse industrial base so essential to the future of the town exists.
  Like the rest of the country, Wellingborough has suffered from the present recession. Over the past two years there have been substantial job losses in these traditional clothing and footwear industries. I also appreciate that the footwear industry has been especially affected by what some would describe as unfair import competition and high tariff barriers to our own exports to many parts of the world—problems that my hon. Friend has on many occasions brought before the House in his capacity as chairman of the all-party footwear group.
  More recently, the newer firms in Wellingborough have been forced to reduce their labour force. The result has been a reversal of the town's traditional position of below-average unemployment for the region to the present level
  1268
  of 10·6 per cent. for April—slightly above the national average. The closure of the BL foundry will probably bring this rate up to 12·5 per cent.
  There are, of course—I make this comparison in no idle sense—other hon. Members who would regard such an unemployment rate as reasonable in relation to the recession that we see affecting many other constituencies, areas that face long and deep problems of structural decline—problems that I am glad Wellingborough does not face. But we would be quite wrong to ignore Wellingborough's difficulties simply because there are other areas that are worse off.
  The Government recognise their duty to ensure through their policies that all parts of the country benefit from the regeneration of industry that we seek and the prosperity that it will bring.
  My hon. Friend asked for signs of hope. I should like to outline one or two of the matters that are relevant in looking at the question of Government assistance.
  The people of Wellingborough and my hon. Friend will certainly ask what the Government are doing to help with their problems. Firms in Wellingborough, as my hon. Friend knows, are eligible for, and, indeed, have taken advantage of, assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. It is perhaps interesting to note what has happened in that regard since the present Government took office. Thirty-two projects in Wellingborough have received £452,000 of assistance towards projects costing a total of £2·9 million. In some ways, that is a reflection of the healthy level of investment that has been maintained in Wellingborough in the recent past, and certainly of the help that the Government have been able to give to enable projects which would not have gone ahead otherwise to do so. That is the important significance of aid under that part of the Industry Act.
  Small firms in Wellingborough benefit from wide-ranging efforts to help small firms generally throughout the country. Entrepreneurs can call on the advisory and counselling services of our small firms service, and I am encouraged by the interest that firms in the area have shown in this, with from 10 to 15 inquiries a week at present.
  Certainly small firms will also benefit from the many measures that we have introduced over the last two years. I should like to draw attention to two from this year's Budget—the business start-up scheme, in which an investor in a small firm will be able to obtain tax relief on up to £10,000 invested in any one year, and the loan guarantee scheme, in which the Government will guarantee up to 80 per cent. of certain loans from the clearing banks to help finance new businesses with no track record yet behind them.
  The area has also benefited from the Government's various special employment measures. At the end of April, 263 employees were supported under the temporary short-time working compensation scheme and 208 were receiving assistance under the job release scheme. Over the year up to April about 260 people joined youth opportunity schemes in Wellingborough. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that this is an important contribution to the problems of unemployment that the town faces, and, in particular, that he will recognise the value of youth opportunity schemes in a town with a growing proportion of young people in its population.
  I also remind my hon. Friend that the Government have provided a substantial amount of non-industrial aid to the

  1269
  town by grants under the urban programme with £95,300 for two projects to be undertaken by voluntary organisations—one in support of the welfare services, and the other to provide work experience for psychiatric patients. But such assistance, valuable though it is in individual cases, will not solve the problems of Wellingborough. As I hope my hon. Friend will agree, the answer must lie in the pursuit of general economic policies that are appropriate and relevant in making progress across the whole framework of our industry.
  I believe that the indications are clear that we are now at the bottom of the recession and that we must look ahead to the upturn and see how we are placed to take advantage of it. On this score I am, perhaps, more optimistic about Wellingborough's future, because I think that during the expansion of the 1960s and 1970s Wellingborough has moved away from total reliance on its traditional industries to a more diversified industrial base. The modern high-technology industries, which will benefit most from the upturn, are already there. In this respect I am glad to note that there are important signs of confidence in Wellingborough's industrial future. For example, I understand that Portal Construction is about to build 17 small factory units on the Finedon Road industrial estate, which is a welcome development.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of other specific questions on which I should like to touch briefly. He talked about a feasibility study on the re-use of the BL foundry. I take careful note of what he said. It would be wrong for me to encourage him to think that the NEB could perhaps automatically assume responsibility for it. This would, on the face of it, be going somewhat wide of the guidelines issued for the NEB, which limit the NEB to making investments in connection with its existing portfolio, looking to the development of companies, or exploiting advanced technologies and, indeed, looking to work in industrial undertakings in the English assisted areas and small firms.
  My hon. Friend referred to what he described as unfair competition from nearby new towns, and he highlighted Corby. I am sure that he would be the first to accept that with an unemployment rate of 21·2 per cent. as a result of the steel closure, Corby's problems are on an altogether different plane from those of other towns in the East Midlands. Corby was essentially a one-industry town, and the Government accepted the need to attract as rapidly as possible a wide range of new industries to regenerate its
  1270
  industrial base. To facilitate this, Corby was made a development area—a decision fully in line with the Government's policy of concentrating aid on the areas of greatest need.
  Naturally, we shall consider any relevant aspects of the criteria that might affect the future of Wellingborough in regard to assisted area status, but my hon. Friend will know that the criteria have to concentrate on bringing aid to those in greatest need, and comparisons inevitably have to be drawn.
  The new towns near Wellingborough are not without their own unemployment problems, with Peterborough at 10·4 per cent. and Milton Keynes at 12·9 per cent. They face many of Wellingborough's problems on a larger scale. The rate of expansion has been perhaps that much greater, the need for new industry correspondingly greater, and a number of problems—particularly a high proportion of young people—have been correspondingly more difficult. That is why it has been necessary over the years to devote substantial resources to ensure the healthy growth of these towns.
  On the specific question of youth unemployment in Wellingborough, my hon. Friend will be in touch, but it may be useful to remind him that the local jobcentre manager has already been in touch with BL and self-registration forms have been issued to those being made redundant. An employment adviser is visiting the -factory on 8 June to interview the workers affected and to advise them about alternative employment and the training facilities available in the area. The jobcentre also plans to canvass local employers on behalf of those being made redundant.
  Wellingborough has at present a historically high level of unemployment. There is no doubt that the closure of the foundry will worsen that position. But it is, I trust, only a temporary setback. Wellingborough has the diversity of industry to take advantage of the coming upturn. I believe that when we reap the benefits of our economic policies my hon. Friend will find the town of Wellingborough carried back with the rising tide to its former levels of prosperity and employment. When it does, it will have been helped in no small measure by the interest, concern and diligence with which my hon. Friend has approached this subject.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Attorney-General
  Attorney-General
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bass Stocks
  Bass Stocks
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Mentally Subnormal Children (Education)
  Mentally Subnormal Children (Education)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  University Graduates (Education Costs)
  University Graduates (Education Costs)
  Teacher-Student Ratios
  Teacher-Student Ratios
  Student Grants (Parental Contribution)
  Student Grants (Parental Contribution)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agency Workers
  Agency Workers
  Married Man's Allowance
  Married Man's Allowance
  Sports Councils, Clubs and Trusts (Tax Yield)
  Sports Councils, Clubs and Trusts (Tax Yield)
  Value Added Tax and Excise Duty
  Value Added Tax and Excise Duty
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Crown Agents (Eritrea)
  Crown Agents (Eritrea)
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
CIVIL SERVICE
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Short-time working
  Short-time working
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment (International Comparisons)
  Unemployment (International Comparisons)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployed Women
  Unemployed Women
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Wolverhampton and West Midlands
  Wolverhampton and West Midlands
ENERGY
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Parliamentarians (Pay)
  Parliamentarians (Pay)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Queen's University of Belfast
  Queen's University of Belfast
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Cardiovascular Malformations
  Cardiovascular Malformations
  Foreign Medical Students (Health Charges)
  Foreign Medical Students (Health Charges)
  Seasonal Workers (Eligibility for Benefits)
  Seasonal Workers (Eligibility for Benefits)
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Junior Hospital Doctors (Pay)
  Junior Hospital Doctors (Pay)
  Chemopathological Investigations
  Chemopathological Investigations
  Health Care (Expenditure)
  Health Care (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Private Benefaction)
  National Health Service (Private Benefaction)
  St. Columba's Hospital
  St. Columba's Hospital
  National Health Service (Hospitals)
  National Health Service (Hospitals)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Mental Subnormality Hospitals
  Mental Subnormality Hospitals
  National Development Team
  National Development Team
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Disabled Persons (Appliances)
  Disabled Persons (Appliances)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Maintenance Payments
  Maintenance Payments
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Mr. N. Patel
  Mr. N. Patel
  Electoral Constituencies
  Electoral Constituencies
  Air Rifles and Pistols (Offences)
  Air Rifles and Pistols (Offences)
  Prisons (Special Wings)
  Prisons (Special Wings)
  Traffic Wardens (London)
  Traffic Wardens (London)
  West Yorkshire Police (Inquiry)
  West Yorkshire Police (Inquiry)
WALES
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  West Midland County Structure Plan
  West Midland County Structure Plan
  Cheviot Hills (Test Drilling)
  Cheviot Hills (Test Drilling)
  Coin Street (Inquiry)
  Coin Street (Inquiry)
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Road Users (Taxation)
  Road Users (Taxation)
  Seat Belts (Children)
  Seat Belts (Children)
  Road Traffic Offences (Fines)
  Road Traffic Offences (Fines)
DEFENCE
  Offset Agreements
  Offset Agreements
  Wavell and BATES Systems
  Wavell and BATES Systems
  Territorial Army Associations
  Territorial Army Associations
  Coulport Missile Base
  Coulport Missile Base
  Anti-armour Bomb
  Anti-armour Bomb

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

Northern Ireland: Foreign News Media
11.5 a.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to counter the damaging and distorted reporting of events in Northern Ireland that are presently appearing in certain sections of the foreign media.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government counter hostile foreign reporting on Northern Ireland by keeping our diplomatic posts abroad constantly up to date with factual information, including ministerial statements, so that they may keep the news media fully informed. This method has met with a measure of success, notably in the United States where our ambasssador and members of his staff have, in addition, made personal contributions to television and radio programmes. In some parts of Europe, however, there is evidence that the Government's position is still not fully understood and the effort already being made in these countries is therefore being increased.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and the action he has already taken. May I ask the noble Lord whether he considers that much of the information that comes out creates sympathy for the wrongdoers and is detrimental to the loyal citizens, to the police, and to the Army?
Lord Elton: My Lords, certainly one would wish to see a proper balance obtain in reporting, and in that context it is important to distinguish between reporting and editorial opinion. The Government's recent study shows that the majority of newspapers in the free world support Her Majesty's Government's policy on political status. A new booklet setting out editorial opinion both in the United Kingdom and abroad is being issued widely and copies are available in your Lordships' Library.
The noble Baroness referred to the balance of what is shown and written about, and I think she will agree that it is has been noticeable that in recent weeks more attention has been paid by the national news media, including television, to non-violent events in Northern Ireland such as the United Kingdom athletics championships, the new Short's airliner coming up six months ahead of schedule, and visits of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Princess Alexandra, the Londonderry Marathon, and so on. I think things are going the right way.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that if we have a free press the only alternative is a dictatorship? Whatever one may say about a free press, that alternative would not be very welcome to a country like ours.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not certain from the noble Baroness's tone whether she is imputing to me or to the Government the idea of a censorship of the press.
Baroness Gaitskell: No.
Lord Elton: Nothing could be further from the case. As I have said, the free use of the free press is beginning to bear fruits in that the public is better seized of the implications of the campaigns now being waged in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there is any reason to suppose that some of the scenes filmed by television may well have been prepared for the purpose, inasmuch as the television crews with all their gear seem to be at the right place at the right time for the purpose of getting gruesome pictures?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not go so far as to make a statement about that. I would, however, observe that there are occasions when cameras appear to precipitate events very soon after their arrival, and the rapidity with which an event ensues appears to be proportionate to the number of the cameras.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Government do not make perfectly clear to people overseas the likely results of moving the Army out of Northern Ireland?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I have already said, our diplomatic posts abroad are kept constantly up to date, both with factual developments and with Government policy. The point that the noble Viscount has made is of course to be found in that material.
Lord Segal: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that one of the aims of the media ought to be the conscious promotion of peace as well as the unbiased reporting of news?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I accept that, and I think there is evidence that the media themselves are now tending to accept it also, because the subject of the news is not merely the violence in Northern Ireland but the condition of Northern Ireland, and outside restricted areas of extreme violence there is a very large part of the Province, much the greater part of it, where normal lives are happily led in peace.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, have the Government considered buying space on American television in order to counteract IRA propaganda in the media in that country?
Lord Elton: My Lords, so far as I am aware, the broadcasts made by the ambassador and others to which I referred were secured at no cost to the public expense.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would the Government agree that efforts of our representatives in the United States have had much success in influencing in every way and inducing the free press of America to give expression more to the views of Her Majesty's Government on the situation in Northern Ireland, and not on making heroes of the IRA?
Lord Elton: My Lords, indeed it has been satisfactory, and if your Lordships would care to look at the summary to which I referred, which is available in the Library, your Lordships would see the extent of that success.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government have taken up with the BBC the broadcasting throughout the day, at half hourly intervals from seven o'clock in the morning, of information about the visit of Princess Alexandra? Many of us believe that those broadcasts were the height of irresponsibility.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that that news should have been made public in advance of the event.

Industrial Diseases (Notification) Bill
11.12 a.m.
Lord Plant: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Private Member's Bill was introduced and piloted through another place by the honourable Member for Newham South, Mr. Nigel Spearing. I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate Mr. Spearing on successfully seeing this Bill through all its stages so that it has finally reached your Lordships' House. I am very pleased indeed to see that Mr. Spearing is at the Bar of the House.
The reason for his deep concern and continuing interest is because he found, after dealing with cases of asbestosis among his constituents, that there were no clear rules laid down for defining industrial diseases, especially new ones. Some constituents had been rejected for benefit during their lifetime by the pneumoconiosis medical panel. In those cases, the death certificate simply said "asbestosis" and therefore the registrar did not forward the case to the coroner. Had he done so, a post mortem would have been performed, the lung tissue probably examined by electron miscroscope and connection with the persons' work established. The Bill is not concerned with definition, diagnosis or compensation. It deals with regulations for the notification and certification of death and the recording of information relating to industrial diseases. It permits the Secretary of State to make regulations in an area of notification of death from industrial diseases which, surprisingly, are not as embacing as one might think. When a death is thought to be due to untoward circumstances, the registrar must refer such cases to the coroner. The registrar has to rely on the death certificate provided by the medical practitioner.
The area between certification by the doctor, registration by the registrar and subsequent proceedings initiated by the coroner, such as post mortem
1460
and autopsies, was reviewed by the Brodrick Committee which reported in 1971. If some of the recommendations of Brodrick had been implemented, instead of gathering dust in the Department of Health and Social Security, we should have had better statistical classification of reasons for deaths, in particular among those workers who had worked with asbestos, in the mining industry, printing, dyeing and the rubber and chemical industries. The Brodrick Report said there should be a new type of classification of death, a reportable death. It said:
"A Registrar of Deaths is obliged to report a death to the coroner in cases where he has reason to believe, or when it appears to him that … the death has been caused by abortion, or … the death has occurred during an operation or before recovery from the effect of anaesthetic, or…the death was due to industrial disease or industrial poison."
As the Brodrick Committee then pointed out:
"This obligation is only on the Registrar"
and the committee recommended that it should be applicable to doctors as well as registrars. The report went on:
"a doctor should be obliged to report any death which he has reasonable cause to believe falls within one of these categories. In the main, we envisage that the Secretary of State will prescribe categories of death in respect of which there is for the time being a particularly public interest."
The Bill will give the Secretary of State, or, with his approval, the Registrar General, power to make by statutory instrument regulations concerning the notification and certification of death and for the recording of information relating to industrial diseases and matters related thereto.
Sir George Young, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, on 30th January of this year in another place welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Government. That has given great satisfaction over a wide field, including the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, whose secretary, Mrs. Nancy Tate, a 1976 Churchill Fellow, has done so much in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I have the privilege of being trustees of that society.
Sir George Young said the Bill provided a means for moving towards the implementation of a small but useful part of the Brodrick Report. The Bill is directed at improving recognition of possible cases of industrial diseases by the doctor who signs the death certificate so that they can be referred to a coroner, who can order a post mortem with electron microscope analysis, particularly in lung diseases, with subsequent help by way of industrial death benefits. The measure is welcomed by the medical profession and the TUC, which in recent years has done so much in the field of preventive medicine. The ILO, supported by the United Kingdom Government, has also been active in this area and gives support.
I recognise that the Bill might be overtaken by wider regulations or legislation if the Government, now stimulated by the Bill, are able to implement Brodrick or parts of it. We must have as much relevant information as possible on the death certificate in relation to occupational background. We should know if there is any connection between the number of people who die from a certain disease and work in a specific industry. The Bill will mean that the death certificate must be redesigned so that the medical practitioner must say that he is satisfied that the patient's death

1461
was not due to, or contributed to by, any employment followed at any time by the deceased. Where that is not done, the registrar will have to report the death to the coroner, or in Scotland to the procurator fiscal; strangely, in Northern Ireland a similar Act already exists and hence the Bill excludes Northern Ireland. Therefore, deaths due to industrial diseases will come under greater scrutiny.
It is to be hoped that the department will be able to bring forward regulations to implement the Bill and indeed to widen the regulations dealing with births, deaths and marriages generally, taking into account some of the Brodrick recommendations. Very few doctors even consider the possibility that work may have contributed to the disease. A change in the regulations and the death certificate will bring about an increased awareness of the problem. I should like to see all cases refused by the pneumoconiosis medical panel notified and investigated by post mortem. I believe that 70 per cent. or more are refused benefit.
Lung cancer, mesothelioma and heart diseases are among the main diseases that I should like to see made notifiable and investigated. I was for 25 years chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society, with its own hospital at Benenden, and I was struck by the thorough investigatory procedures into the occupational backgrounds of patients. The death certificates anticipated what are expected to be the results of this Bill. There should certainly be a post mortem. when those who have been exposed to asbestos or mining dust die of heart disease.
I need not here bring to your Lordships' attention the progress that has been made in linking certain diseases with various occupations. Research into, and investigation of, death statistics continues, and it is now being accepted that industrial asthma may result from occupational environment. People who work with polyurethane, some laboratory workers with animals, and workers using complex platinum salts in the photographic industry are particularly subject to asthma, which ought to be classified as an industrial disease. Statistics are needed, and more information is needed on the death certificate.
I hope that the Government will support the Bill which, when implemented, will bring among general practitioners a greater awareness that many deaths not now linked with occupational risks should be so recorded. I hope the House will support the Bill. I regret having spoken for so long and for having kept your Lordships from dealing with the next Bill, which might be of greater interest. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Plant).
11.22 a.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Plant on his speech and on his presentation of the Bill in your Lordships' House. Naturally enough, I also wish to congratulate my honourable friend Mr. Nigel Spearing on bringing forward the Bill. I wish to welcome the Bill on behalf of these Benches. Although the Bill is merely permissive, it gives the Minister powers that do not at present exist, and it plugs a gap in the existing legislation on industrial diseases.
1462
The progress of the Bill is an excellent story of all-party co-operation. My noble friend Lord Plant has clearly outlined the purpose of the Bill, which has cleared the scrutiny of another place, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hale, who is the next noble Lord to speak in the debate, will plug any gaps that might exist. I understand that the Bill has Government approval, and I trust that this House will give it a speedy passage, with the minimum possible delay. I shall not take up the time of the House any further—though not because of another Bill that is to follow, since this Bill is far more important than that. I hope that the House will give this Bill the maximum support and not delay its progress in any way.
11.24 a.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary to add very much to what has been said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for his personal reference. This is a very remarkable Bill; it is almost an experiment in legislation. It has attracted the support of the entire membership of an all-party committee in the other place. No voice was raised against it, save the criticism from time to time from the box to the Minister, who was wholeheartedly in support of the Bill. Naturally, there were some hesitations and postponements. Yet the Bill has proceeded, despite those hesitations and postponements and despite the fact that in order to make one adjustment the committee had to be adjourned and finally sat under a new chairman, so as to find a little more time to ensure the Bill's progress.
This simple and very remarkable Bill imposes no obligation on anybody except the Minister. In the first case it leaves the judgment entirely to the Minister. It calls upon the Minister to act, no doubt with the advice of the special committee that is constantly dealing with industrial matters and monitoring very many diseases. There is nothing to prevent anyone drawing the Minister's attention to the desirability of an investigation of a death in the kind of circumstances with which this Bill is concerned.
The whole attitude towards industrial diseases has changed to a considerable degree. One reason for this lies in the advance of science and technology. In many cases, in particular those involving people who work underground, these advances have in the main eliminated the cause of the disease. Dust has been reduced in both the mine and the mill. The appearance of 2 million chemicals and so on presents some likelihood of special problems, which are being dealt with. However, a Bill such as this provides quite an answer to those who criticise all the processes of parliamentary government. The Bill, sandwiched in the middle of 30 or 40 other Private Member's Bills, each attracting a paternal interest from some Member or other, has been given special facilities—we might hear of another one this morning—in order to get through the maze of difficulties which tend to frustrate the passing of Private Member's Bills in another place, or for that matter Bills going from this House to another place. I am not sure whether I am entitled to name the Minister, but in view of the circumstances that I have outlined, I would say that Mr. Rossi, who was in charge, went to infinite trouble to secure the passing of this apparently small measure, which I believe brings into

1463
operation a different aspect and a different spirit in the making of legislation. Mr. Spearing deserves every possible compliment. I hope that the House will take the view that a Bill which attracted so much consent and such a warm welcome in the other place should be treated in the same way in this House, so that we shall be able to congratulate ourselves on seeing it go on to the statute book within the shortest practicable period.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a few moments. As one engaged in industry and with trade unions, like many other noble Lords here, over the years, I welcome the Bill as a significant step forward in the reduction and indeed the prevention of industrial diseases. It is not always realised, of course, just how much suffering, and indeed death and grief, are caused by the occupational environment, and knowledge of the reasons for this situation, and other factors concerning it, is indeed essential if we are to reduce the causes of injury and death which often ensue.
Another factor, apart from the human aspect, has been the considerable amount of working time lost. I should emphasise—I think it is worth doing so—that we often hear a lot about the time lost through industrial disputes (which, of course, are regrettable in many cases) when far more time, often running into hundreds of thousands of manpower hours per day, is lost through industrial illness and disease, which is often preventable. I think this Bill, which will enable us to have far more information about the causes of the illnesses, and often death, which ensue as a result will be for the benefit of our industrial health, too, as well as for the human health involved. I am sure we owe a debt to Mr. Spearing and to all those involved in the passage of the Bill so far, and I am also sure we shall give it a speedy passage through this House.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I first of all say a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, on introducing this Bill, and express certainly my support, and I am sure the support of all my noble friends on this side of the House, for the purposes of the Bill. I rise to make just one comment on it. This Bill is admirably short, but I am not quite sure that it is desirable to introduce Bills of this kind, giving a Minister power to make regulations, without, so far as I can see, any possibility for Parliament to discuss the regulations at any time. Parliament is here, after all, to try to improve on what the Civil Service may do and on what Ministers may do, and it is not impossible that in a case of this sort, with the experience of Members of this House, for example, it might well be able to improve on what the Minister might put into regulations.
I was attracted to this subject partly because, in the past, I have been involved in such legislation from a ministerial point of view—and from the point of view of more than one Ministry—and have taken a great interest in it for a long time; but also because of the fact that a Bill of this character, that is so short, does not really give very much opportunity for full discussion in this House. It would have been desirable,
1464
perhaps, to have had a debate in the House on this report, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, has been gathering dust meantime. Nevertheless, I certainly give it my very full-hearted support, and should any difficulty arise in the future over the fact that the Bill is bound to be highly technical in character as it works out—and certainly the regulations will be so—I suggest that it might possibly be necessary to legislate further on the subject so as to give Parliament a fuller opportunity to discuss.
But I do not want at all to give any impression that I think the Bill should be in any way delayed for this reason. Undoubtedly it will be possible for steps to be taken to improve the situation, to identify industries where the incidence of any particular industrial disease is strong, and to give a basis for further research and improvement. I think this is the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has in mind. I would also thank him for his explanation of the Bill, because I am bound to say that without that explanation I found the Bill somewhat lacking in clarity of purpose. But now that he has given it I would welcome the Bill very much, and I hope there will be no delay in passing it.
Lord Segal: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my own few words of welcome to this Bill. It is a very important little Bill. Indeed, it is of such crucial importance that it may be the means of saving hundreds of valuable lives in this country in the future. It involves a complete redrafting of the wording and the form of the death certificate, and here I feel quite sure that the Minister will see that he enters into consultation with the representative bodies of the medical profession in this country before the final form of the death certificate is agreed upon. It is most important, not only that the cause of death should be certified but also what other diseases are present at the time of death, preferably certified in the order of their importance as having been the cause of death.
Here I would say that this involves the future of perhaps one of the most valuable sections of our community—that section of the working population who may be cut down in the prime of life through being engaged in industrial occupations which are a potential cause of early death. I can only say that this Bill is of such importance that I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to all the different factors and all the different professional bodies involved in it. Having said that, I should like to extend the warmest possible welcome to this Bill.
11.38 a.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, for the careful way in which he described the Bill, including the background of the Brodrick Report, which I think gave us all a very good idea of what the Bill is all about. I should also like to congratulate Mr. Spearing on having initiated this Bill in another place.
The Bill is welcomed by the Government. It will enable regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, or with his approval by the Registrar General, to require doctors to identify those deaths where there may be some reason to believe that the employment

1465
followed by the deceased person might have been a contributory factor. These deaths would then be brought to the attention of the coroner.
I should like shortly to explain how this differs from the existing system. It is already open to a doctor to report a death to the coroner; for example, in cases of accidental or violent death, or if the cause of death is unknown, or if the death is clearly due to a known industrial disease. There is also a long-stop, so to speak. At the time when the death is registered by the relatives, the registrar will check whether the cause of death is one of those on the official list of industrial diseases. If it is, he will report the death to the coroner if the doctor has not already done so.
The present Bill will not stop any of these procedures, which will continue as before, but it is hoped that regulations under the Bill may help to identify a few more cases. They may do this because they will oblige the doctor to consider when he is filling out the medical certificate for the cause of death whether it is possible that the death was due to the deceased person's employment or whether his employment might have been a contributory factor. The form of the existing medical certificate of cause of death is prescribed by regulations made by the Registrar General under powers in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. Under that part referring to the cause of death the Act provides for the doctor to show the disease or condition directly leading to death; the antecedent causes—that is, the morbid conditions, if any, giving rise to the disease; and other significant conditions contributing to the death but not related to the disease or condition causing it.
The certificate is in the form recommended by the World Health Organisation for international use. It has been proposed that a further box should be added to the certificate which the doctor would tick if he had no reason to believe that the death was due to any employment followed by the deceased, or contributed to by that employment. Where this box was not completed by the doctor the registrar would be required to report the case to the coroner.
It is, of course, very much a matter for discussion with the medical profession as to whether a negative statement of this nature is to be preferred to a positive statement, but the mechanics of bringing about this change in certification would essentially remain the same. We will, of course, ensure that all proper consultations take place before any action is taken. The duty of reporting these deaths to the coroner will be placed on the registrar of births and deaths.
We shall, however, need to have very careful consultations with the medical profession about the form of words to be used on the death certificate. We do not want coroners to be overwhelmed with cases. For example, there is a widespread belief that heart attacks may be contributed to by stress at work, but the epidemiological evidence in support of this belief is slender and still controversial. We would hardly want all heart attacks to be reported to the coroner. We shall, therefore, embark on consultations with the medical profession. The provision for Scotland in the Bill would enable the Secretary of State—or with his approval, the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland—to make regulations for Scotland under the powers in the Bill.
1466
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn did raise a technical point, and I am sure it will be looked at carefully by my right honourable friend. I do not feel that I should comment on it, except to say that these regulations will be subject to the scrutiny of the joint committee as to their technical correctness. No doubt the technical committee will examine the extent of the powers under which the regulations are made, so that the regulations will not be allowed to enforce anything beyond the scope of the Bill.
Finally, may I say that this is enabling legislation which will be followed by appropriate consultations. When the regulations are made by statutory instrument, due publicity will be provided to the medical profession, and it is intended that the regulations will be made during the lifetime of this Parliament.
11.43 a.m.
Lord Plant: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his most helpful and encouraging reply in relation to the Government's intentions. I should also like to thank noble Lords for their interest in this Bill, which I hope will be continued.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Horserace Betting Levy Bill
11.44 a.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second time. Last Wednesday I was one of 500,000 people who were fortunate enough to be on Epsom Downs to see a superb English racehorse win the most famous flat race in the world. The sight of the son of one of this country's best sires giving a display in front of probably the largest gathering of people on earth was reassuring in these otherwise doubtful days. I am concerned that this scene and many others like it up and down the country—although smaller in many cases—should be repeated for tens and hundreds of years all over the land. I believe that this small Bill before us today will help to enhance all aspects of the sport and industry of horseracing and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.
This Bill establishes no new fundamental principles but merely brings up to date previous legislation from the early 1960s and, I hope, closes one or two loopholes. I shall refer shortly to previous legislation but in passing I should like to say how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who was one of those who had the foresight to help in the passage of the Acts in the early 1960s, is here this morning. I know that he will be a great help in our deliberations. I am sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is not able to be present because he is not at all well; any debate about horseracing in either House will be the poorer without him. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who was the chairman of the Tote Board; the noble Lord, Lord Newall, who was a founder member of the Racing Committee of the two Houses; and the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, whose views on racing I am very familiar with. I know that the noble Lord will have quite a lot to say as he obviously had a great deal of experience in the subject when he was Minister of Agriculture.

1467
Also present this morning is the noble Lord, Lord Manton, who served on the Betting Levy Board for, I believe, six years. He will be able to throw quite a lot of light on the workings of the Levy Board. As I understand it, the noble Lord is to be the next senior steward of the Jockey Club, so he can speak for the racing industry in a very complete way. Last but not least, my noble friend Lord Belstead, is speaking for the Government. Knowing, as I do, something about his background, I feel that up to now he may have been more familiar with sea horses than with racehorses and with Wimbledon than Epsom—but as the noble Lord is involved in racing today I believe there is some hope of salvation for him in the end.
Because of the importance of the subject and the potential wealth of experience in your Lordships' House it would have been most agreeable to have had a more comprehensive Bill designed to cover more aspects of racing. Indeed, a year ago I was hoping to introduce a Bill to this House incorporating the principles of the current Bill, which I hoped would attract a full-scale debate and be supported by the Government in the other place. Unfortunately, time ran out and there was no prospect of such a Bill going through the other place at that time. The racing industry has therefore been awaiting a Bill along the lines of the present Bill for at least 18 months and it was fortuitous that my honourable friend the Member for Devizes was successful earlier this year in a Private Members' Ballot and introduced this Bill, which, with all-party support, he successfully piloted through the other place—including two days in Committee. In fact, the whole of Clause 3 was added in Committee as an amendment at the request of bookmaking interests. Therefore the Bill has been subjected to a good deal of scrutiny in the other place and has already been well considered.
Because of the background to and origin of this Bill, in some ways I regret having to ask your Lordships to consider and, I hope, to support it as quickly as possible and to content myself at this stage with pointing out two or three of its main advantages to racing. It would be most unfortunate if time ran out on us once again. In short, racing could lose up to £1 million a year in legal avoidance—which I shall come to again in a moment. In the year ending March 31st, the Levy Board paid an incentive sum of £730,000 to book-makers as interest on advance payments. This sort of sum could he lost if they have to pay this over again, so that it is important that we deal with this Bill as expeditiously as possible,
My Lords, like some of us, the Levy Board has a serious cash flow problem. Under the current law, the formal assessment of a bookmaker's levy liability can be made only when his full turnover is known. Thus, for the current period, April 1981 to March 1982, his turnover will not be known until after March 1982. An assessment will then be made, and dues paid sometime after that. That is a long time after any business was done in, for instance, April 1981. One of the happy features following the original legislation has been the good relationship between the Levy Board under the successive chairmanship, of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, the noble Lord, Lord Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who is soon to join us in this House. The relationship between them and the bookmakers is such that the Home Secretary has been
1468
called in as a referee on only a maximum of three occasions. The bookmakers are realistic enough to know that the upkeep of racecourses and the training and breeding horses is a very expensive business, and in most, if not all, cases abroad this finance comes from a Tote monopoly
It would be very much a part of the spirit and the bargain of the legislation of the early 1960s that when off-course betting shops were legalised, the bookmakers would try to make the levy scheme (which is based now on a percentage of turnover) work so that the very industry which introduces so much "fluttering" should survive. It was along these lines of cooperation that recently about one-third of the bookmakers (who were responsible for 65 per cent. of the board's actual income) have voluntarily paid their dues in advance.
This Bill is intended to make this standard practice so that those who willingly co-operate are not penalised when compared with those who do not. The assessment will still be made on the basis of bookmakers' known past trading. Payments on account are unlikely to amount to the total yield and there will be an instalment system, rather like PAYE, and in most cases a balancing payment to make after the end of the levy year. The details of how this procedure would work and the level of payments on account required are matters to be decided between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee at their annual negotiations. The amounts which individual bookmakers will be required to pay, and when they are required to pay them, will be determined by the three Government-appointed members of the Levy Board who may consult with the Bookmakers' Committee and others. The result of their determination will be issued to the bookmaker and in due course this will be replaced by the final levy assessment which becomes the bookmaker's legal liability.
My Lords, Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the procedure for appeals against determinations to be held by the appeals tribunal. This can be done only where a bookmaker considers a determination not to be in accordance with the scheme; that is, that the board have their facts wrong as to his past trading. This must be done within 28 days. Clause 3 was added in another place as a further safeguard for a bookmaker who can apply to the three Government-appointed members of the board if he feels that owing to a deterioration in his circumstances, it would he unjust for him to make a payment on account in accordance with the determination served on him. More than one such application can be made.
Earlier in my speech, I mentioned that if this Bill should fail, racing, could lose a large sum of money in legal avoidance—and I must say a little more about that. The more unscrupulous members of the fraternity found that under the system of assessments on past trading, it has been possible, and still is possible, to wind up one company, say, towards the end of March, and transfer the business to another company which would be liable for levy payments in respect of only a short period of trading, perhaps only a few days; and a certain number of bookmakers rather unscrupulously took advantage of this. But under this Bill the practice will be stopped by basing the final total of liability on the current year. All this is rather complicated

1469
but I think it will be clearer when certain other noble Lords have spoken.
Other provisions in the Bill include arrangements for new bookmakers who have nothing on which to base their past trading. There is an undertaking also that a bookmaker will not have his assessment increased following an application to the three Government-appointed members of the Levy Board; and there are one or two other matters. But I feel that on Second Reading I need not take the matter further but simply to bring this Bill to your Lordships. Speaking entirely as a layman, as somebody passionately interested in racing in this country and in its welfare, I want to see the industry prosper. I ask your Lordships for your support for this Bill and I beg to move that it be react a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a(Lord Crawshaw.)
11.59 a.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord on the way he has introduced this Bill, with clarity and also with feeling. I was moved by what he said about the Derby and how it struck him. I believe that we have some of the finest bloodstock in the world and that a Bill of this kind is very helpful. A lot of people not only watch racing but indulge in other aspects of the game in the sense of having an odd bet off course. I do the same myself; I like to bet on a horse, but I like to be there at the race itself. I still have a love of horseracing, even though I was nearly tempted away from racing by watching a lot of hound trails in Willie Whitelaw's division and in my own. That is another fine sport but I will not elaborate on that.
I should like to endorse what the noble Lord said about the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I am sorry that he is not here. He has not been well. He has a passionate interest in the well-being of the racing industry in all its aspects. I hope that he will soon be better again and be able to give us some of his advice. The parentage of this Bill is to be found in paragraph 19 of the report of the Peppiatt Committee in 1960 which said that there was a "unanimous opinion on all sides of the racing industry (including the bookmakers) that a levy is required". It was stressed that a levy was required to improve the horseracing industry but that a subsidy was unnecessary. The report was debated in the House of Commons on 23rd May 1960, and found general acceptance. Subsequently, the then Home Secretary (now Lord Butler) introduced the Betting Levy Bill, which was given a Second Reading on 5th December 1960, and was considered by a Committee of the Whole House on 14th December 1960.
These facts remind me that I took part in the Committee stage, as did the noble Lord, Lord Renton (then Mr. David Renton), who was the spokesman for the Home Office, and of course my noble friend Lord Wigg joined in. He was then a member of the Race-course Betting Control Board and had been concerned in the discussions which led to the setting up of the committee, and also in discussions as to how the Levy Bill could be implemented.
During the Committee stage, doubts were expressed about the composition of the Levy Board. No doubt the Minister will reply—in detail if necessary—to
1470
matters that I want to raise. I was far from happy for I thought, as did many of my colleagues, that interests like the veterinary services ought to have had a say as to how the levy should be spent. I took that line. Looking back, I think it was the wrong approach. After all, we are anxious to improve the industry; and, inevitably, if an industry is improved the veterinary profession will be brought in indirectly and in the normal way. So, perhaps I was wrong then. The then Home Office Minister said that the Government had proceeded on the assumption—and, indeed, on the understanding—that the Jockey Club members of the Levy Board would not only represent the Jockey Club point of view but had the additional responsibility of representing the various interests concerned with the spending of the levy.
In the event, although the Jockey Club gave an undertaking which led to its membership being increased, that undertaking was ignored until November 1967 when my noble friend Lord Wigg became chairman of the Levy Board and drew attention to the Jockey Club's failure. I do not want to get into too much argument about that. There have been faults on both sides in this terrific argument over a long period of time. The main thing is what are we going to do about the best for racing?
The result has been that, particularly in recent years, the Levy Board has uncritically accepted Jockey Club policy—I know some noble Lords will disagree with that—and levy expenditure has been channelled in two main directions. First, towards ever-increasing prize money; and, second, towards interest-free loans, There is, of course, a strong case for part of the levy being directed to prize money, but the Levy Board and the Jockey Club have committed themselves to a prize money policy which, in 1981–82 amounted to over £10 million, and there is to be an increase of 13 per cent. in 1982.
Prize money goes in the main to rich owners of a small number of good horses. The prize money policy was examined by the Royal Commission on Gambling and their comments are to be found in paragraph 9.95 et seq. of the first volume of the Royal Commission's Report. In paragraph 9.100 the Commission said
"In our opinion the case for more prize money has been put far too high."
In paragraph 9.108 the Commission drew attention to the fact that the levy,
"is mainly drawn from the lowest paid members of the community. The owners who would principally benefit from an increase in prize money are amongst the wealthiest."
In the same paragraph the Commission stated,
"the case for a substantial increase (for prize money) would have to be much more cogent than the arguments which have been submitted to us."
The policy of interest-free loans is extremely expensive and has benefited racecourses owned by the Jockey Club and the privately-owned Goodwood course.
The levy on horseracing is based on yearly turnover assessments which cannot he made until the end of the year's trading. Until the 31st March, 1979, assessments were based on the previous year's turnover. This method opened the door to avoidance, for only those trading in the levy year could be assessed; so when assessments were based on the previous year'

1471
turnover it was possible to wind up a company a few days before the end of the levy year and transfer the business transacted to another company, which would be liable for levy for those few days. This avoidance of the levy amounted to a very considerable sum. Moreover, it was unfair to bookmakers who did not seek to "dodge the column".
The Bookmakers' Committee—a statutory body appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963—agreed with the Levy Board in 1978 that levy should be assessed on current year turnover from 1st April, 1979. The levy is of course payable in accordance with the provisions of the Betting, Gaining and Lotteries Act 1963; but there is no legal requirement to pay the levy until the assessments have been made. So, as assessments could not be made until after the end of the levy period when the business was known, bookmakers were asked to pay an estimated levy contribution voluntarily in advance. About one-third of the bookmakers paid up, and when the levy year ended on 31st March, 1980, about £9·2 million of the total levy of about £15 million had been paid in advance in this way. But this voluntary scheme had major shortcomings. The main one was that it was unfair that two-thirds of bookmakers failed to co-operate and did not pay. It is for this reason that bookmakers' organisations support the Bill, but a big question mark remains as to the real issue underlying the Bill. The consequences of the Levy Board/Jockey Club policies have resulted in cash-flow shortage brought about because of over-spending on prize money and interest-free loans. That is why the Bill is necessary.
The report of the Royal Commission on Gambling points out in paragraph 6.8:
"The incidence of illegal betting is in our opinion quite simply a function of the combined rates of duty and levy on betting and the combined rates of levy and taxation have become dangerously close to the limit that can be imposed."
Again, in paragraph 6.59:
"The present rate of deduction is uncomfortably high and any increase carries the risk of driving more off-course betting underground."
Thus the levy has reached its limit.
The Bill has been favourably received and all those who are interested in the well-being of horseracing wish to see it become law. But there is a fundamental objection to the fact that the difficulties of the Levy Board come about because of the policies of the Board and the Jockey Club, and the voices of those who are vitally concerned with how the levy is collected and how it is spent remain unheard. The Bill as at present drafted places on the independent members of the Levy Board the duty of considering objections. The Bookmakers' Committee may be consulted if the independent members choose. Obviously, those who are likely to be affected by the Bill want objections to be dealt with by those who have a knowledge and understanding of bookmaking.
The only people who do understand the complicated nature of bookmaking are the members of the Bookmakers' Committee. And it would be a major step forward if the promoter of the Bill would agree to accept an amendment which would increase the
1472
membership of the Horserace Betting Levy Board by adding a second member from the Bookmakers' Committee.
At the present time, the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee is an ex officio member of the Levy Board. At the same time, it might be useful if the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council was also given a place on the Levy Board in his own right. At the moment he has a place on the Levy Board as one of the Jockey Club's three members. My suggestion would therefore involve an amendment increasing the membership of the Levy Board by two, one being drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee and the second being the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council. I suggest also that Clause 1(5) of the Bill should be amended so that consideration of objections would rest upon the independent members of the Levy Board and two members drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee. If this were done, the Levy Board itself would be strengthened because the voices of those who are involved in the day-to-day business of racing would be heard, and this would be an enormous advantage to the Levy Board when considering the complex problems which face the industry at this time.
When the Bill was considered on Third Reading in another place, the promoter, Mr. Charles Morrison, commended the Bill as being of considerable advantage to the racing industry and to those who enjoy the sport. I endorse that view. I also found myself in complete agreement with the speech of the Minister of State at the Home Office when he placed great emphasis on the fact that the Betting Levy legislation from 1960 down to the present day was based on agreement and that the levy policy will not work properly, and will certainly not work to the best advantage, unless agreement is reached. I believe all noble Lords will accept this.
I understand that the Bookmakers' Committee has written to the Home Secretary, urging that the Levy Board membership drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee should be strengthened by increasing bookmakers' membership on the Levy Board. I understand, too, that the Transport and General Workers' Union, which played a prominent part in launching the racing industry's benefit scheme, has also written to the Home Secretary, urging that there should be wider representation of bookmakers on the Levy Board.
I am sure that, if the suggestions that I have made are accepted by the promoter of the Bill and by the Government, the Bill will have a speedy passage to the statute book, and we shall do all we can to facilitate that happening.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in congratulating the mover of this Motion to receive this Bill very warmly, for the clear and concise way he has put it before your Lordships' House. I think that was the only point on which I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, during the whole of his speech, but we will come to that later.
To the outsider, of course, this may appear as a rather small matter—as a problem of the Levy Board's cash flow and the correction of what I suspect was probably a legislative error when the Bill was brought

1473
forward. But to those of us here who are interested in this great sport it is of much greater importance. I think it will help the Levy Board; anything that helps the Levy Board helps racing, and that I thoroughly support.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord who says that the Levy Board has done a good job of work—particularly of course during the four years when I was a member of it! I held that office as ex officio chairman of the Tote Board and I was happy to serve during the whole of that time with the noble Lord, Lord Manton, who sits next to me and is later to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, I used to note that whenever I said something sensible, which was rare, the names "Mancroft" and "Manton" being rather similar, my wise remarks were attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Manton, whereas whenever I said anything silly, which was much more frequent, they were rightly attributed to me. I hope that accident will not occur today.
I wished, and still wish, that the work of the Levy Board—and it is complicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has made perfectly clear—was better known as regards what it is and what it is trying to do. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, emphasised some of the difficulties. They are primarily, as this Bill shows, those of reconciling a large number of conflicting interests. Her Majesty's Government are concerned, with three representatives now on the Levy Board; then there are the Jockey Club, the jockeys, the vets, the clerks of the course, the owners, trainers, the lads, the bookies—most important—and the Tote, too. Please let it not be forgotten that the Tote makes an increasingly large subscription to the levy itself. Most of all, there is the punter. We frequently talk about "public money" being involved in racing. I suppose semantically that is correct, but I regard it always as punters' money, and I think it is as well to remember that.
The Levy Board also has the difficulties of history, geography and local politics (which are very strong), property speculation (which is stronger than most people realise) and the British weather. When people say "Why do we have only 15 days' racing on such-and-such a course: look what they have at Hialeah or elsewhere", they forget that English grass will only stand a certain number of days' racing whereas tan and sand will stand a great deal more. I had these difficulties brought home to me very markedly when, as chairman of the Tote, I went to many courses abroad when we thinking of mechanising the Tote and putting in a computer. Questions of this kind are raised, which are fundamental to the basis of the noble Lord's Bill. There are three major racecourses almost within bicycling distance of the Eiffel Tower. London has no racecourse—you cannot call Kempton or Sandown really London courses—and several other of our big cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, have no racecourses; Liverpool, just; Edinburgh, yes; and this is largely clue to property speculation. That is why I mentioned the property speculator earlier. In Wales, Cardiff has no course and there are no others unless you count Bangor-on-Dee and Chepstow, which is hardly Wales, largely I think because of the Nonconformist conscience.
The other thing which foreigners say about us which
1474
directly affects the Levy Board is that they cannot understand why we allow the off-course bookie to have such an influential power on the financial control of racing in this country. This is no occasion to talk about the Tote monopoly, and obviously I am prejudiced to a degree. I exercised that view very strongly in the Levy Board both under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, whose absence I regret, as will others of your Lordships, and that of Sir Desmond Plummer who we are shortly to welcome here as a Member. So my views on that are well known and are prejudiced.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, is to speak later in the debate. He very kindly some short while ago helped through your Lordships' House another small Bill concerning greyhounds. I must declare an interest. I am now chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. We went before the Royal Commission, the Rothschild Committee, and tried to get a levy on the same basis as the levy we are debating today, and we were turned down in rather a cavalier way. We got a little butter with our bread; one very small reason for rejoicing was the fact that we were allowed to increase the amount of racing on a few days. As I say, the noble Lord, Lord Newall, very kindly produced this as a Bill in your Lordships' House.
This brings me to my last point. This Bill today will have occupied, if I have counted correctly, nearly 100 columns of Hansard. If the noble Lord, Lord Peart, were to have his way and produce as many irrelevancies as he has mentioned today, it would be 1,000 columns of Hansard. I wonder whether small Bills like this Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw (and I hope that I am not in any way being derogatory to his spendid speech), or the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Newall, was kind enough to produce for me, are really suitably drafted for occupying time in your Lordships' House when our Order Paper is so crowded. Is it really beyond the wit of man, and of woman of course, to find some other way in which these technical and very important matters might be dealt with parliamentarily without needing to occupy so much parliamentary time? In case I should defeat my own case by occupying even more parliamentary time, I again would support very strongly and wish well this Bill which the noble Lord has introduced.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this Bill which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Crawshaw and to congratulate him, as others have done. The limited but necessary purpose of the Bill—namely, to improve the cash flow of the Levy Board, so that they can give more help to racing—has become, as has already been made clear, a really essential purpose for the benefit of our racing industry.
When, in 1960, as was mentioned, I had the responsibility of helping to formulate the details of the original scheme and to pilot the original Horserace Betting Levy Act when my noble friend Lord Butler was Home Secretary, I had to carry out negotiations with interested parties so that the scheme which we asked Parliament to accept would be one which, in its essentials, was agreed by all concerned, but especially by the bookmakers, because they were the people who were going to have to provide the money.

1475
There were two men at that time to whom, above all others, we were extremely grateful for the help that they gave. One was Colonel Scott, the doyen of the bookmakers' profession. He was an old Etonian. I do not say he was the only old Etonian who has ever been a distinguished bookmaker, but he had tremendous authority and kindly persuasion and that helped a great deal. The other one was the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, then Member of Parliament for Dudley, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has mentioned. He knew more about racing than anyone in the Home Office. Indeed, the only man in the Home Office who knew anything at all about racing was not available to give me advice, because he was in the Civil Defence Department.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, showed great courage at that time. He voted with the Government throughout the proceedings, and never voted with the Opposition of which he was a member. I was especially grateful to him when he became chairman of the Levy Board, because the board then gave some help for the improvement of facilities at one of our smaller racecourses—namely, Huntingdon—which was in my constituency, and it has had most beneficial results there. Indeed, it is a great pity that he is not well enough to be with us today.
In 1960, our main concern was to ensure that the Levy Board was composed in a way which gave confidence to all concerned. So we were thankful that the scheme which we then put forward was acceptable—the chairman and two other independent and completely impartial members appointed by the Home Secretary, then two members—now three members—of the Jockey Club, the chairman of the Tote Board and the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee. That agreed arrangement, slightly modified, has, I think, stood the test of time pretty well. After all, 20 years is a pretty fair span for what was regarded as a brave experiment at the time, and, as a result, a tremendous amount of change has taken place—change for the better—in British racing during that time.
But as we have this Bill before us, I think it was right—if I may say so with deep respect to my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who knows so much more about this than I do—for the noble Lord, Lord Peart, to make the points that he did, whether we agreed with them or not. I did agree with some of the points that he made. Of course, we have to bear in mind, however, that in another place this was a Private Member's Bill, as it is in this place, and if we are to make any substantial changes, especially if they are controversial, we may jeopardise the passage of the Bill. It might not reach the statute book and that would be a bad thing for racing.
However, having said that, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was right to ask, as he did, if I may put it rhetorically: Are the bookies, who are being asked to improve the cash flow by making advance payments—that is quite a departure in itself—adequately represented on this board of eight people, by simply having the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, which is a statutory committee and has a part to play in this, as their only representative among the members of the Board? I do not know the answer to this, but I think it is a point of sufficient importance to racing for it to be considered between now and Report stage.
1476
May I suggest to my noble friend Lord Crawshaw that, perhaps, he and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, might get together with my noble friend Lord Belstead, in order to see whether, without arousing controversy, without jeopardising the future of the Bill, something might be done on the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has suggested. After all, it is only two more members; one further member representing the racing industry and one further member representing the bookmakers. It is not a very bold departure, I should have thought, and it may have a bearing on a matter which I must confess has increasingly in recent years caused me some real anxiety, and it caused anxiety to the Royal Commission on Gambling, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, pointed out.
If the combined rates of betting levy and betting tax are too high, it will cause a resumption of illegal betting, with the corruption, and worse, which could follow and with the disadvantage to racing that would then also follow. Therefore, if this question is relevant—I am not saying that it is so; I am putting it merely hypothetically for the purpose of consideration—to the representation on the board, that is a further reason for considering that representation.
It would be a tragedy, surely, if all the good that we not only tried to do, but succeeded in doing, with the agreement of all political parties and all interests concerned 20 years ago, by rationalising our betting laws and getting some money for racing, were to be undone merely because of a failure to make a relatively small adjustment in the representation on the Levy Board, then we should be missing a great opportunity and it would be a tragedy. That is all that I wish to say and I think that this is a most important and valuable occasion in your Lordships' House.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I have no intention of making a lengthy speech. I put my name down merely so that I could support my noble friend Lord Crawshaw, who so ably moved this Bill. In doing so, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft for his kind remarks on the Bill on greyhound racing, which of course has nothing to do with this one.
This Bill puts right an anomoly. It ensures that there will be a cash flow for the Levy Board. When it has been passed, all the bookmakers will assist racing on a common basis. Legal levy avoidance will be removed and that, of course, is a very beneficial factor. I am extremely glad to see that Clause 3 has been added, which will give safeguards to the bookmakers who have genuine difficulties—because they may well have these difficulties. I have no hesitation at all in recommending this Bill to all noble Lords as a real improvement to the racing industry—an industry which I am sure we all know provides a great deal of foreign cash to this country.
12.29 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I am very happy to support the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has so ably explained to us this morning. I myself sat as a Jockey Club representative on the Levy Board for about six years, before becoming a steward of the Jockey Club, and I should like to assure noble Lords

1477
how important this legislation is to the whole racing industry. I should add that it has the full support both of the Jockey Club and of the racing industry, as represented by the Horserace Advisory Council.
This brings me to one of the points which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not aware that one of the three Jockey Club seats on the Levy Board has now been handed over to the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council. The Horserace Advisory Council represents practically every facet of the racing industry except, which is perhaps strange, the bookmakers. They were invited to have a seat on the Horserace Advisory Council but they preferred instead to sit in the wings as observers. This might seem strange, but it brings me to another point which perhaps we should be aware of: that the bookmakers are only the collectors of the levy. The providers are the punters. The punters are represented on the Levy Board by the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council. This is a very important point.
As I have already told your Lordships, I sat on the Levy Board for several years. As at present constituted, it is a wieldy and convenient board. It consists of eight members, and very seldom will a vote be taken. Matters will be argued out reasonably. Even when the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was its chairman we did not have too many votes or differences of opinion. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will agree with me that in the end we came to a consensus opinion. Bookmakers very seldom dissented from that opinion. Nor did the Tote, except perhaps on the odd occasion. Therefore to bring another bookmaker on to the statutory board would make the board unwieldy. This is quite apart from the fact—I am not being facetious—that two bookmakers never really make as much sense as one bookmaker, because they seldom agree each with the other. If there were two bookmakers on the board, the structure of the bookmaking industry would be fraught with differences of opinion, arguments and various factions of bookmaking.
I should have thought that the real answer lies in the constitution of the Bookmakers' Committee, which, as noble Lords probably know, consists at the moment of 15 members. The legislation was altered in 1976. On that committee there are four members of BOLA, one member of the National Sporting League, who is a BOLA man, plus one Scottish representative, and nine members of the National Association of Bookmakers. It would be beyond my comprehension if they could not provide one representative to sit on the Levy Board to represent the bookmaking industry. I cannot see that there is any possible advantage in their having two representatives. I am very happy to support the Bill, so ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw.
12.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this is certainly an appropriate week in the racing calendar for your Lordships' House to be debating this Bill. Nor can I think of any Member of the House more appropriate than my noble friend Lord Crawshaw to be introducing this debate. My noble friend has had a lifelong interest in racing and has a deep concern for the
1478
prosperity of the sport. I congratulate him on introducing the Bill so clearly and for explaining its background, its purpose and its detailed provisions.
As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place, the Government had hoped to be able to find room in their legislative programme for legislation along these lines, but Parliamentary time has not allowed for this. Thus the Government were particularly pleased when the honourable Member for Devizes, Mr. Charles Morrison, having drawn fifth place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills decided to use that opportunity to introduce this Bill. As your Lordships who are taking part in this debate are aware, Mr. Morrison listened carefully to the views of all those directly concerned with the matters dealt with in this Bill and amended the Bill, where necessary, to take account of some of those views. The Government fully support the objectives of this Bill and the form in which it has reached your Lordships' House, and we very much hope that it will be on the Statute Book before long.
As my noble friend Lord Crawshaw has explained, the need for the Bill stems from the way in which British racing is financed: through the annual levy scheme established under the Betting Levy Act 1961, which was piloted through the House of Commons by my noble friend Lord Renton. That scheme was consolidated in the 1963 Act. The levy raised from bookmakers is used, as your Lordships well know, by the Levy Board for the purposes prescribed by the Act, including the improvement of racing, veterinary education and science and the breeding of horses.
May I say one thing in passing. There are two important features which have become very clear from the speeches that have been made during today's debate by so many of your Lordships who in one way or another have a close knowledge of racing. The first important feature that strikes me, arising from the speeches which I have heard, is that the levy arrangements enable the financial needs of racing to be met entirely by those who enjoy racing and betting. This in itself contributes to the way in which the financial arrangements have worked so well. My noble friend Lord Mancroft quite rightly reminded your Lordships that British racing receives no direct financial support from the Government. Indeed, it makes a substantial contribution to the Exchequer. In 1979–80, which is the last year for which I have figures, over £172 million was collected in betting duty on horseracing.
The second point which occurred to me while listening to the speeches is that it is wholly desirable that these arrangements rely entirely upon agreement between those who collect and spend the levy, the Levy Board, and those who contribute to it, the bookmakers. No other party is directly involved in these arrangements, except in the rare event of the two sides not being able to agree on the details of the levy scheme in time for that scheme to take effect in the next levy period. If that happens, and only then, are the Government involved in fixing the levy. I was happy to hear my noble friend Lord Crawshaw say that in only three years since these arrangements were introduced has a Home Secretary been required to determine a levy scheme. In all other years the board and the Bookmakers' Committee have together agreed the arrangements for the annual levy.

1479
The Bill does not alter the fundamental principles which underlie the present well tried arrangements for financing racing. It simply increases the options available to the two sides when agreeing the terms of these levy schemes. As my noble friend who is introducing the Bill today has explained, the levy schemes are based on the current turnover of bookmakers. However, this has meant that final liabilities could only be determined after the end of the year to which the scheme related. To prevent the loss of a full year's levy, payment of instalments on account of final assessment has been needed. But such advance payments have not been enforceable, and they cannot be made enforceable under the law as it exists at the moment. Although a levy scheme involving advance payments has been operating on a voluntary basis for the past two years, only a limited number of bookmaking firms has agreed to make these advance payments, and the Levy Board had to agree to pay interest on these payments. That interest has amounted to about £¾ million, again in the last year for which there are figures—l979–80.
Under this Bill, if the two sides agree that a levy scheme should involve advance payments on an instalment basis, all bookmakers would have to bear their full share because under the Bill such a scheme would he enforceable before the courts. This would provide the Levy Board with a secure basis on which to plan its expenditure throughout the year, rather than its being dependent for its finance on the goodwill of a relatively small number of bookmakers who have been carrying a burden which should be shared by all. From what I heard of the debate I think I am simply repeating what all your Lordships feel, that additionally the Levy Board would be relieved of paying large sums in interest which would be better utilised to the benefit of horseracing.
Even before the Bill was published I understand that my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Morrison, met representatives of the Bookmakers' Committee to discuss what the Bill should contain and, in addition, a proposal that a mechanism be introduced to deal with cases where a bookmaker would suffer genuine hardship if he had to meet the schedule of advance payments set for him by his notice of determination was incorporated into the Bill by the promoter, by the addition of a new clause at the Committee stage. That is now Clause 3.
One proposal to which the promoter of the Bill did not agree to give effect in the Bill stemmed from a fear which was expressed by some bookmakers that the arrangements proposed in this Bill could enable the Home Secretary to determine a levy scheme which would require bookmakers to pay the whole of a year's advance payments in one lump sum. The Bookmakers' Committee therefore asked that the Bill should be amended to prohibit the Home Secretary from doing this, but my honourable friend the promoter of the Bill did not think it was right for this matter to be dealt with in the Bill and, speaking on behalf of the Government, I am bound to say, nor do I. As I said earlier, the essence of these annual levy schemes is that they are left to be agreed between the parties directly concerned and it would be contrary to that principle to set limits in the Bill to the kind of scheme
1480
to which the two sides were free to agree and for this reason I am sure it is right that the Bill should be silent on the possibility of a single levy payment being required.
However, I must tell your Lordships that I do not believe that there are any real grounds for the bookmakers to believe that the present Home Secretary, or any of his successors, would be likely to fix a levy scheme which would demand the whole of a bookmaker's contribution by means of a single sum to be paid at the beginning of the year to which the levy scheme applied. I am confirmed in this view by the undertaking which the present chairman of the Levy Board has given on this matter on behalf of the full Levy Board. Without pre-empting what Parliament may decide in considering this Bill, the chairman has written to my right honourable friend to say that the board would not seek to incorporate into any levy scheme under which the turnover in the levy period itself formed the basis of levy liability, any provision which would require bookmakers to make a payment in advance of the business to which that payment relates.
In another place my right honourable friend the Home Secretary welcomed the Levy Board's undertaking and commented that while he could speak only for himself he could not imagine any future Home Secretary determining a scheme in the event of a dispute without taking full account of this commitment given by the present chairman of the board and without taking account also of what was said in this House and in another place during the course of the passage of this Bill.
Referring briefly again to Clause 3, which enables the notice of determination of levy to be varied to reflect a significant change in a bookmaker's circumstances—the clause which was specially put into the Bill by my right honourable friend the promoter of the Bill in answer to representations—in those circumstances the Government-appointed members of the Levy Board are empowered to direct that all payments shall cease to be payable or that they shall be reduced to such amount or amounts as they, the Government-appointed members, shall specify, and if they decide that neither of these courses of action is appropriate they must dismiss the application. As your Lordships will have noticed from the Bill, they may consult the Bookmakers' Committee or anyone else they think proper, but what they are not empowered to do is to increase the size or frequency of advance payments. In other words, under Clause 3 they may decrease the advance payments due to the board but they can never increase them.
There is just one question which, if my noble friend Lord Crawshaw, will allow me to stick my oar in, I should like to refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the undesirable effects which could ensue, as my noble friend saw it—if the combined effects of the levy and betting tax become too high and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in his speech, in very much the same tone referred to pressures upon the levy through (as the noble Lord sees it) the policy which has been followed so far as prize money is concerned. I realise that there have been conflicting views about the board's decisions so far as prize money is concerned. Of course this is not a matter

1481
in which the Government have any standing; it is for the board itself to decide how best to spend the levy in the best interests of racing, but I realise that I cannot leave my answer there because the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and my noble friend Lord Renton, went on to suggest that the membership of the Levy Board should be increased to make room for a second bookmaker on the Board and, indeed, my noble friend mentioned the desirability of making room for a representative of the Horserace Advisory Council.
Apart from the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Manton gave to my noble Friend Lord Renton on that final point, there are two problems about what both noble Lords are suggesting. The first is that as my noble friend Lord Renton said, one has to look at the safety of this Bill and the fact that, as I understand it, all your Lordships have expressed a wish to see the Bill get on to the statute book. I am very much aware that in another place on Third Reading my honourable friend the Minister of State, at column 399 of Hansard of 8th May, made the point that to deal with the representation on the Levy Board would fall outside the scope of the Bill. I quite realise that this would be a matter for the House. The Long Title of the Bill could be changed; these matters could be altered and it would he for the House to deal with, but as soon as we started going as wide as that then I think the passage of the Bill would be jeopardised. I think it is reasonable for me to raise that as a problem.
The second problem, as I see it—and the point arises from the important remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and my noble friend Lord Renton—is that I think it is questionable whether it would be right to amend the present constitution of the Levy Board without very careful consideration being given to the effect of any change on the relative weight on the board of the various interests now represented. I say that particularly in the light of the very interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Manton. For this reason I think it might be more appropriate to consider such suggestions for increasing the representation of bookmakers on the Levy Board in the context of comprehensive gambling legislation, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Gambling, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, which the Government intend to introduce in due course.
This Bill is not in any way a matter of party political controversy; it will ensure the continued prosperity of a sport which has long been part of our national way of life and which continues to give great pleasure to millions. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Crawshaw for introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House, and I give him the warm support of the Government.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank your Lordships for the two things for which I really asked: one was support and the other was speed. I have managed to receive both and I am grateful for them. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead, speaking on behalf of the Government, for his support and for his explanation of the Bill, which was probably more lucid than my own. I was grateful for his views about bringing any
1482
fundamental changes into this Bill because of the possibility of losing it and also because of the prospect of Government legislation which is pending on the subject of the changes in the Levy Board, and so on. I tend to agree with him that that is probably a more suitable vehicle, rather than jeopardising this particular Bill. That was, I think, one of the main points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearl.
I will just say something briefly on his other point. He was a little worried about what he called the overspending of the Levy Board and money front the levy going in the wrong direction. Well, I will not argue with him; I do not suppose the Aga Khan is worrying where his next meal is coming from, but, speaking as a more impoverished English owner, from time to time one does find that the business of horseracing is a very expensive one. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has indulged in it himself before now, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I do feel that the average English owner does not find it an easy exercise to keep horses and I think he really does need all the assistance he can get. Apart from that, the upkeep of some of our older racecourses is a matter of considerable expense. We may he faced with a new grandstand at Epsom, and there is the whole question of Aintree and all the rest of it. So I think there are plenty of ways in which this money can be well spent. My feeling is that the Levy Board does a good job on it.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft did just float the possibility of this Tote monopoly; he did it very subtly. I suppose that is just another way of channelling more money into racing should it have to come, but we are very much hoping to continue on our present basis, and that will keep racing in its usual aspects in this country.
My noble friend Lord Renton—unfortunately, he has had to leave us—also mentioned this question of the membership of the Levy Board. As I say, I will consult with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about this, but I think he indicated the path we should go on. It is, as he said, well outside the scope of this Bill. My Lords, I simply want to repeat my thanks for the interest shown in the Bill, and I hope we shall dispatch it as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill
12.53 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It is appropriate that there should be legislation going through Parliament during the International Year of Disabled People. Although legislation by itself does not answer all the problems of the disabled, it is a necessary framework, particularly in order to ensure that the benefits for disabled people are not just confined to this year of 1981 but are ongoing.
The last major piece of legislation for disabled people was the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. That was a tremendous step forward, but 11 years have elapsed since it reached the statute hook and there have been apparently many areas

1483
which need strengthening. There have been a number of attempts to bring forward legislation by means of Private Members' Bills in the other place to answer the gaps in existing law. For example, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Member of Parliament for the Dearne Valley, introduced a Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill in the 1978–79 Session of Parliament, but although this received a Second Reading in the other place it was lost with the advent of the 1979 general election. Again, Mr. Stanley Orme, Member of Parliament for Salford West, tried to bring forward a similar Bill in the following year, but there was no time available in the other place for it to have a Second Reading.
That, too, was the prospect for the present Bill. it's sponsor in the other place, Mr. Daffyd Wigly, the Member of Parliament for Caernarvon, drew 10th place in the ballot and there was no time for a Second Reading debate. However, the strength of feeling in the other place that there should be legislation during the International Year of Disabled People on matters of concern for disabled people was shown by the fact that 328 Members of Parliament, over half the membership of the other place, signed a Motion supporting the need for legislation to help disabled people.
The Bill before your Lordships today is a very limited one, a fact dictated by virtue of it having to find its way through the other place procedure without time for formal debate. Despite its restricted nature, it is the feeling of the All-Party Disablement Group in Parliament, as well as of bodies such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, that it is worth securing for a number of reasons to which I shall refer in a moment. I hope with the help and wisdom of the Government your Lordships will be able to improve this Bill. We have already heard from the Government that the access clause is to be strengthened. We are also hopeful that it will be possible during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House that it can be strengthened and extended in other directions. I hope that the Bill's scope may be widened to encompass Northern Ireland. The Minister for the Disabled himself, Mr. Hugh Rossi, stated in the other place when this Bill came up for its Third Reading that he appreciated that it had not yet been possible to go as far as he would have liked. It is, therefore, my hope that this Bill will not only deal with a few specific problems facing disabled people but will also create a framework for further legislation in the future.
The United Kingdom still has a long way to go to catch up with the provisions made for disabled people in certain other advanced Western countries, notably those in Scandinavia. I very much hope that the general debate surrounding this Bill, and in the country on the issue of the International Year of Disabled People, will awaken a desire to make much more significant progress on these matters over the next few years.
Clause 1 of the Bill is aimed at strengthening the safeguards for blind people in particular, but also for other disabled people whose mobility is impaired by their handicap, in relation to their use of the public highway, and specifically the pavements. This is a matter which has been of great concern to organisations campaigning on behalf of the blind. In 1979 the
1484
National Federation for the Blind, with the support of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, Help the Aged, the Pedestrians Association and a number of other bodies, started a campaign under the title "Give us back our pavements". The object of the campaign is to clear up cluttered pavements in order to ensure that blind, partially blind and other handicapped persons can safely use the pavements. The campaign accuses local authorities of continuing to erect bollards and other street furniture indiscriminately without any thought for blind or partially-sighted pedestrians. It is appropriate that we are discussing this clause today because tomorrow, 6th June, is National Pavement Day. They also accuse gas, electricity and water authorities, the GPO and local councils of often erecting insufficient guarding for street work undertaken by them, and when the work is completed of leaving pavements in an appalling condition.
Clause 1(1) places a statutory duty on any authority which undertakes works on the highway, which includes the pavements adjacent to such highways, to have regard to the needs of blind and disabled persons. Subsection (2) extends this responsibility to cover the placing of lamposts, bollards and other pavement obstructions in the street. Subsection (4) deals with protecting temporary obstructions such as road works.
Subsection (3) is of relevance not only to blind persons and those in wheelchairs, but also to the general public, not least mothers wheeling prams. It places a statutory responsibility on local authorities to consider the needs of disabled persons when deciding whether or not it is appropriate to provide a ramping between a pavement and a street. The benefit that would accrue from a positive approach to such ramping by local authorities is self-evident. The National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom strongly supports these provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill. They are, incidentally, very worried about the possible effect of the recent Green Paper on the use of pavements and those cycling on them.
Clause 2 attempts to deal with one aspect of a major problem facing disabled people and that is the abuse of special parking arrangements which are made on their behalf. I should, however, make it clear that this clause does not deal with one major bone of contention which is at present under consideration by the Department of Transport—namely, the orange badge scheme. That scheme, which was provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is currently being seriously abused with the net effect that there are pressures not to issue badges in some areas and disabled people thus suffer because of the unthinking abuse of the scheme by others. However, the Government themselves have given a commitment to deal with this abuse under the revised orange badge scheme which will create a new offence of abuse of the orange badge. Perhaps the Minister when she responds later today will confirm that this commitment still stands and can indicate, hopefully, that progress might be made in this matter in this Bill. It would seem sensible to have at least two badges, one for temporary disabled people and one for those people who are permanently disabled.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 gives powers to local authorities to provide parking spaces by order and allows them to make fines on summary conviction

1485
of up to £5 on the first offence and up to £10 on subsequent offences. This level of fines has been increased since the date of that Act. The purpose of this clause is to introduce a new specific offence for those who abuse parking spaces restricted for the use of disabled people. A fine for any offence under this clause will entail a fine of up to £50 and it is important that there should always be a higher fine for such mean offences against the disabled community than for normal parking offences. We therefore hope that the Government, if at any later stage they decide to increase fines for ordinary parking offences, will further increase the £50 upper limit so as to keep a real deterrent effect in the differential.
The new category of offence also relates to the abuse of parking places for disabled people in streets on the highway. I should just like to say here that parking in central London is virtually impossible for disabled drivers and no parking places seem to be allocated to them at all. Taken together with the anticipated tightening up of the orange badge scheme, this new provision should help make life a little easier for disabled people who so often find that the parking provision made for them is currently abused, if it is made at all.
Clause 3 has been the aspect of the Bill which has received the most attention in the press and the media and deals with the need to improve the legislative framework securing access for disabled persons into and out of buildings to which the public have a right of access, and for securing their mobility inside such buildings and I hope also to and from car parks.
There has been much criticism of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 because its access provisions have been insufficient and have not been binding. Sections 4 to 8 of that Act deal with this question and it might be as well to dwell for a moment on the wording of Section 4. It says:
"Any person undertaking the provision of any building or premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the building or premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any) make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the building or premises who are disabled."
The problem is that there is no sanction for those who do not abide by the provisions of this and subsequent sections. More to the point, perhaps, is that there is no means within either the planning legislation, at least as it has up to now been interpreted, or in the building regulations procedures which ensures that a statutory responsibility laid down by Section 4 of the 1970 Act is pursued at critical stages of development of new buildings.
There are three ways of tackling this problem. The first is the use of planning legislation and in the case of England and Wales, the Town and Country Planning Act 1970. It has been the intention of the sponsor of this Bill in the other place to bring in new powers in this Bill which would make it mandatory on local authorities to lay down as part of their planning consent, conditions that the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 should be adhered to where appropriate. It has generally been thought up to now that local planning authorities, far from being mandated to make such planning conditions, were not even permitted to make access for the
1486
disabled—a matter that is a material factor in giving or withholding planning permission.
However, the position has changed somewhat during the discussions that have taken place during the progress of this Bill and of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland Bill which your Lordships considered earlier this week. The Department of the Environment for England and Wales and the Scottish Office for Scotland have now agreed to issue a new circular this summer which will point out to local authorities that they already have powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to make planning permission conditional on the provision of access for disabled people. This is a major step forward and one can only ask how on earth it could have been that such powers have not been pointed out to local authorities over the past 10 years. It will now be up to local authorities to ensure that they use these powers and to local councils and organisations campaigning for the disabled, to keep a watchful eye on the situation. I hope that the Minister can give your Lordships an assurance that the circular which is to go out to local authorities will be of real use and that the Government will consult with interested parties.
The purpose of Clause 3 of the Bill as it stands is to make it mandatory on every local planning authority when granting planning permission for the development of the building to which Sections 4 to 8 of the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act applies, to draw to the attention of the developers their responsibility under that Act and to the code of practice—BS 5810, 1979–which is the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings. The practice of notifying developers in this way is already undertaken by the better local authorities such as Hove in England and Arfon in Wales. It is said to be very helpful practice. This Bill makes it good practice hereafter; the standing practice for all planning authorities.
The third aspect is that of the mobility of the disabled inside buildings, which is not covered by the imposition of planning conditions. Planning can deal with the access and egress for disabled persons, but mobility inside buildings is a design rather than a planning factor. There is a strong feeling that building regulations based on BS 5810/79 should be developed and applied to ensure that this aspect is safeguarded. As it currently stands, the Bill does not make such provision, but in view of the new proposals introduced by the Government on Tuesday night into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which appears to bring the code of practice provisions into the sphere of building regulations, I would hope that at a later stage of this Bill it will be possible also to move in this direction for England and Wales.
There can be no doubt that a properly laid down procedure, inspected by a local authority stage by stage, as a building is constructed, with the proper sanctions against those who do not comply with the requirements of the code of practice, will be the most effective step to ensure that more than lip-service is paid to the needs of disabled people inside buildings as well as in terms of access and egress to and from buildings. I hope that when she replies the Minister will be able to give some indication of Government thinking on this matter.

1487
Clause 4 does the same for Scotland as Clause 3 does for England and Wales. However, in view of the progress on this matter that has been made in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, the Report stage of which we discussed in this Chamber on Tuesday, it would now appear that the provisions of this clause may no longer be necessary. We shall, therefore, consider amendments in Committee that will adjust this Bill so as not to duplicate what has already been provided for in the Scotland Bill.
I come to Clause 5. Section 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 requires that buildings falling into the categories covered by Sections 4 to 6 of that Act—namely, ones into which the public are to be admitted and which, therefore, should make provision for the needs of disabled people—should have signs outside indicating that such provision is made. However, this is not enough. Not only should people know that there is access for disabled people to buildings, or that there are lavatories inside them, but clearly they should be made aware of the way in which disabled people might be able to move inside the building in order to get to these lavatories; likewise, for disabled people to get out of buildings and to the car park, there should be sign-posting. Such signs should also be displayed in universities and school buildings covered by Section 8 of the 1970 Act, and in offices and other premises covered by Section 8A of that Act.
The purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill, therefore, is to extend the use of sign-posting in this way so that a disabled person can move about inside buildings easily and not he left merely with an indication of the facilities on a small sign on the outside of that building.
Finally, we come to Clause 7. The only reference which needs to be made to this clause is our hope that it may be possible, in later stages of this Bill through your Lordships' House, to include the necessary form of words that will enable its scope to extend to Northern Ireland. Sadly, it seems that there are likely to be more people in Northern Ireland who are in need of these facilities and provisions, and the least that we can do in this Chamber is to try to ensure that they do not miss out on this Bill.
On Tuesday an amendment requiring local authorities to appoint access officers was widely supported by many of your Lordships. This was for Scotland, but it seems important for England too. It is vital that scarce money is not wasted by doing the wrong thing, and I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing more frustrating for disabled people than to find something like a lavatory or a ramp which has been especially installed for them but which they cannot use because it has been incorrectly arranged. No doubt many of your Lordships will have read in the press of the lavatory for disabled people which was especially built at the new Covent Garden complex, the only problem being that it was built down 19 steps. All of us who are disabled can give many similar examples.
Disability varies; there are the blind, the wheelchair-bound, the ambulant disabled and others. Every local authority should have its expert advisers on access. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young,
1488
will agree that a job will be more efficiently carried out if the person supervising knows and understands what is needed.
As I sat in my car collecting the meat from the butcher last Thursday a car drew up not far from me. Out got a woman and a young boy. The woman went to the boot of her car and lifted out a wheelchair. She then went to the passenger seat and helped out a young girl of about seven. The three of them went towards a shop and found that it had steps, so the woman and the boy went in leaving the little girl sitting in her wheelchair on the pavement. This week I went down to visit Stoke Mandeville hospital, and the spinal unit was full of young paralysed people.
In introducing new legislation to help so many disabled people in this country, the country is doing a really worthwhile, humanitarian job. It must not be forgotten that what is useful and helpful to disabled people is of use to everyone, whoever they are, and more so if they live to be elderly. I very much hope that this legislation will come into force during this 1981 International Year of Disabled People. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
1.17 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like, briefly but warmly, to welcome the Bill. We, on these Benches, fully support it. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for the way in which she has introduced the Bill to the House today. She has explained the provisions of the Bill very clearly indeed and I agree with all that she said in support of them.
As it stands—and the noble Baroness made this point—it is a modest measure. Nevertheless, in the form in which it stands, even without the developments of Tuesday evening, we would have welcomed it in the year of disabled people as a token of the national desire to give help to the disabled in this particular year and as a forerunner of more far-reaching legislation for which we would hope at a later date.
There are six provisions in the Bill which have been outlined by the noble Baroness, and three of them relate to access. The views expressed by the Silver Jubilee Committee and the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People have made it clear that although the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 sets out provisions for access for the disabled, it has proved almost impossible to enforce them. The fact that some requirement was not reasonable or practicable seems to provide a perfect excuse for noncompliance.
We, on these Benches, therefore welcome most warmly—as my noble friend Lord Winstanley made clear at the time—the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on Tuesday to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. As the noble Baroness has said, it is a significant step forward in the enforcement in Scotland of the access provisions of the 1970 Act. We are grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and those who supported him in all parts of the House when he tabled the amendment in the first place. We welcome most warmly the expressed intention of the Government

1489
to move a similar amendment to this Bill in Committee to apply the provision to England and Wales. The amendment will greatly strengthen the Bill, and will help to make the Bill worthy of the year of its birth. We look forward to the speedy passage of this Bill through the House.
1.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her introduction of this Bill, and for piloting it through your Lordships' House. I should also like to congratulate those in another place who were responsible for helping to get this Bill to us, and in particularly the honourable Member for Caernarvon, Mr. Wigley. As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the Bill in this form has not been discussed at all in Parliament. It has been the subject of a great deal of negotiation with the Government behind the scenes. Therefore, I hope that at its various stages in this House we shall be able to air publicly some of the matters in the Bill, and some of those which may still be at issue. I understand very well, as I am sure others do who have been in the Commons, the difficulties that exist in finding time for Private Member's Bills, especially if they are controversial or complicated.
I intend to speak almost wholly on the question of access for disabled people to buildings. This subject has now become, since last week, closely linked with a Government Bill; namely, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is still before this House. Three days ago there was a breakthrough as regards access to the disabled in the addition that was made to that Bill. A very significant new clause was added late last Tuesday night. The Government had put down that new clause amendment on the same lines as the one that I had tabled at the Committee stage.
That new clause, and it was the new clause that I had drafted with some small drafting changes, constitutes the first strengthening of the 1970 Act—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—on this subject of access in 11 years since it first was passed. So I should like again to thank the Government for acting fairly fast, as they did behind the scenes, and for changing their minds from what they had been saying earlier in another place. I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield, who was the Minister who had to hear the brunt of getting this change agreed and brought forward in time.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield in his speech on Tuesday evening also stated that the Government intended to extend the purposes of the new clause to the rest of the country, and that they intended to use this Bill, a Private Member's Bill, to allow that to happen. So we understand that the Government at a later stage will be bringing forward the necessary new clauses or amendments to this Bill, in order to carry out what has now already been done in the Scottish Local Government Bill.
As some of your Lordships will know, I am chairman for Scotland of the International Year of Disabled People, so I particularly welcome this development in 1981 and am glad to have played a part in it myself. I am sure that the other three chairmen, the chairmen for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, who are not in Parliament, will also be very glad indeed that
1490
the Government are making this important advance in 1981. I should just like to ask my noble friend the Minister when she comes to reply whether she can confirm that Northern Ireland is included, because that was not made clear on Tuesday evening. I assume that the statement meant that at the earliest opportunities the equivalent of the new clause would be extended to all the other three parts of the United Kingdom. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady Young for the part which she must have played too in going into this matter in recent weeks and arriving at a decision that this advance should be made, and should be made for all parts of the United Kingdom.
I should briefly like to state what this forthcoming change consists of. The 1970 Act prescribed that there should be access for disabled people for all new buildings that were going to be built, were being designed and which were for use by the public. It was not only buildings owned publicly, such as libraries; it was also shops and pubs and other places which were privately owned but were used by the public as a whole. Wheelchair access and also facilities inside for severely disabled people were prescribed. But a number of buildings have been designed and built since 1970 without providing proper access arrangements. There was in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1979 the safeguard that this would be required only if access arrangements were both practicable and reasonable. When buildings have been constructed which were for use by the public and have demonstrably not had access of this kind, the reason why it has been impossible to enforce the 1970 Act is that there was no way of determining what was both practicable and reasonable.
Many complaints have been made and efforts made to try to put this to the test, but there was simply no system for testing what was both practicable and reasonable. That is why it has been impossible to achieve compliance with this part of the 1970 Act. What the new clause which I originally tabled some weeks ago, which the Government with drafting changes have now adopted and which is now in the Scottish Bill, provides is an independent system of determining what is both practicable and reasonable. This follows recommendations of the Silver Jubilee Committee. That committee advocated in January 1979 that this should be done. It was also advocated by the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People. These are two bodies which represent a wide range of bodies who have been campaigning for disabled people.
The effect of the new clause now in the Scottish Bill, and which we understand will be added to this Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom, is to strengthen the 1970 Act. It may be asked why this was done first in a Scottish Bill; that this has been an untidy way of doing it. But there is nothing unusual about that. We have separate legislation, and this happens from time to time. I must remind your Lordships that when the 1970 Act was first presented as a Bill—and I was closely involved with Mr. Alf Morris at that time—it was drafted for England and Wales. Scotland was not in it, and it was only after some weeks of my drawing attention to the matter that the position was changed; in fact, I obtained help to draft a separate Private Member's Bill for Scotland which followed the same lines.

1491
The Government of the day, who had been helping Mr. Alf Morris with the drafting of his Bill—also, of course, saying how it must be restricted because, naturally, they were prepared to help only if it was within certain limits—came to the rescue and eventually provided the amendments which extended to Scotland the 1970 Act, when it was a Bill. But that happened only at a very late stage; it was on Report that the amendments extending it to Scotland were included, the Bill having gone right through its close examination in Committee as a measure applying to England and Wales. So, if a Government can contemplate with equanimity a major advance in this field, which is what the 1970 Act was, applying to parts of the United Kingdom but not to all of it, and notably not to Scotland, then I do not think we need have any difficulty in accepting a similar procedure in the reverse direction; on this occasion the breakthrough has been made in a Scottish Bill. It was going through at the right time and as a Government Bill.
Can my noble friend Lady Young give an approximate timetable? I realise she cannot be exact. My noble friend Lord Mansfield gave an indication on Tuesday night of how long it might take before the Secretary of State for Scotland would be able to prescribe the body or bodies to carry out the determination of what is both practical and reasonable in Scotland, and the Secretaries of State for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will no doubt have a similar duty. We should be interested to have a rough timetable of when the Government foresee the new procedure coming into operation.
I wish to comment, albeit briefly, on access officers, because my noble friend Lady Masham referred to the subject. I must again accept some responsibility because I tabled the amendment on access officers in Committee on the Scottish Bill, having myself done the drafting for it to be in a Scottish Bill. My intention was to have a discussion of the subject and to hear the Government's views. But I must make it clear that I never intended to press that amendment if the Government had any objections to it. I say that because almost every local authority in Scotland has already designated an access officer; and therefore if there were objections to my new clause in that respect, it was not a proposal I intended to press. While I am not familiar with what goes on south of the Border, it would have been wrong to try to press that new clause into the Scottish Bill because access officers are being designated in Scotland satisfactorily by the local authorities. Having myself drafted and tabled the original amendment on that, I did not table it again on Report; I thought a useful discussion of the subject was all that was required, and I am of course speaking in that respect about Scotland.
I am glad we have this Bill before us and I am pleased to think that in your Lordships' House we have this opportunity today, and will have others, which are not available in the other place, to discuss it. I hope the Bill will emerge at the end of the day not only with the advance concerning access, which we have already been told the Government intend to put into it, but with the other parts of the Bill which the noble Baroness outlined and which will also be helpful to disabled people.
1.35 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible at the end of what has been a long and trying week in your Lordships' House. I wish at the outset to thank my noble friend Lady Masham for introducing the Bill. With her great knowledge, she presented it with the customary clarity she brings to anything she does in this House. In one of my capacities outside, I am national chairman of all the leagues of hospital friends—1,285 different leagues—and in that capacity I have the privilege of working with and trying to help some of those people suffering from disabilities, and I mean disabilities in the widest possible sense—physical and mental—those of us who can get around and those who are bedridden. I wish the Bill could have helped the bedridden, but unfortunately it must aim at trying to implement the 1970 Act, so it deals more or less exclusively with those who are able to get around. Indeed. I wish the Bill were not necessary, but those of us with problems realise that something must be done, and that is why we are so grateful to my noble friend Lady Masham.
I feel very strongly that people need to be taught. Those of us who suffer from a disability know the problems; but those who do not, do not appreciate what we are trying to overcome. I could single out, for example, the architects and designers of new and old buildings. Not far from here, opposite the West door of Westminster Abbey, is a brand new bank. I tried hard to get into that bank on a rainy day not long ago and found it utterly impossible to do so. Also a few days ago I opened a community centre and to my horror discovered that leading up to the stage, in what is not a very large centre, was only a ramp with no handrails, and therefore for me, with two sticks, it was utterly impossible to get on to the stage. It was with equal horror that the local authority realised that the community centre, which was designed almost (or supposed to be) for disabled people as a meeting place, discovered that it was impossible to get on to the stage unless one was in a wheelchair.
Some people ask me, "What do disabled people who can get around actually need?" I have noted, for instance, that the blind need inside buildings a rail to enable them to walk; the deaf in public galleries need amplification and headphones such as we have in this Chamber: the wheelchair people need ramps to get up and down any incline or decline; those on crutches or sticks cannot manage ramps—how few people seem to realise that—so they must have steps at the side of the ramps. That applies to steps going into a building, inside a building and from pavement to road. I believe that is covered by a provision in the Bill in which the noble Baroness is endeavouring to make it easier for people to get off the pavement and across the road, and one sees so many wheelchair people unable to get their wheelchairs up the pavement. But we must nevertheless have the pavement edge and not always the sloping pavement.
Those of us who are lucky enough to drive have problems with parking. My local town does not have a single parking place for disabled people. I do not expect that it ever will, though perhaps with any luck following the passing of the Bill somebody might jog the arm of the local authority. I find that the new chopping precincts have ample parking spaces for cars

1493
driven by the disabled, and usually it is possible to find a parking space, unless someone who should not be using it has already parked there.
I think that the general public would say to us that we do not make our needs well enough known. Perhaps some of us suffer from pride. We do not like to ask for help. But today we have the opportunity to ask the Government and the Minister for help, in this special year, and it is for that reason that I hope that the Bill will speedily go through your Lordships' House.
1.41 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) who is unable to be present because she is attending a family funeral. I know that she would support some of my remarks if she were able to be present. This is a small Bill. Perhaps one might liken it to a small child, and in saying that I want to pay tribute to the enormous amount of hard work that has already been devoted to the Bill in another place. However, I should like to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that this Bill is the best Bill that can be produced for disabled people at this time?
I have just likened the Bill to a small child, and I am delighted to say that the small child has grown up considerably in the last few days. I hope that that growth will continue while the Bill is passing through your Lordships' House and that by the time its passage is complete it will have grown up to adulthood and will be a Bill of which not only your Lordships' House, but the Government and in fact Parliament as a whole can be proud.
I wish for a few moments to turn to Clause 1 of the Bill. Subsection (3) provides that:
"Highway authorities shall have regard to the needs of disabled persons when considering the desirability of providing ramps at appropriate places between carriageways and footways."
I wonder whether we cannot put that a little more strongly and provide that when kerbs at pedestrian crossings are replaced sloped kerb-stones should be used, though I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, that this might not be suitable for blind people.
With regard to Clause 2, and the subject of fines to be imposed on able bodied people parking on spaces provided for disabled drivers, I would say that I understand that proposals are in hand to increase the ordinary parking fine maximum from £20 to £50. If that is so, I think it would be important to maintain the differential, so that the fine for parking on spaces provided for the disabled should go up in proportion to £125. I mention this point because it is a very important one to disabled people. If someone else parks on their spot, unlike other drivers they cannot find another parking space just a little farther away. Probably they have to go away, being unable to park at all in the area.
With regard to Clause 3, relating to access, the original proposal in the Bill was merely that the attention of developers must be drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, with the addition, much welcomed, of the building standard No. 5810. Now, since last Tuesday, we hope
1494
that the clause will be greatly strengthened so far as new buildings are concerned. Along with my colleagues who spoke in the debate on the Scottish Bill, I am delighted about this, though we should like to see some of the details spelt out later.
However, this clause does not provide any benefit in relation to existing buildings, and this point reminds me of an instance in this building the other day when I had some guests who were in wheelchairs. I went to the Central Lobby to get them tickets for the other place, but found that I could not get my own wheelchair into the Admission Order Office, where one has to go to get tickets for disabled people. Obviously in this kind of instance a little good natured pressure needs to be applied, and I feel that every local authority should appoint someone who is responsible for applying good natured pressure towards improving access to existing buildings. Someone already on the staff of the local authority should have such a responsibility. We have heard that in Scotland all but two local authorities already have access officers.
Access is so vital. We talk about integrating disabled people, but how can you be integrated if you cannot get to your place of work, cannot find a parking place so as to go shopping, or cannot get to evening classes and so on? Access is absolutely vital. So I very much hope that every local authority will designate someone who will gently pressurise, so as to secure improvements to existing buildings.
I should like to finish with a small point. The wheelchair sign is sometimes used in relation to facilities designed only for the ambulant disabled and which are not suitable for those in wheelchairs. It is not much good displaying a wheelchair sign if the facilities are not suitable for disabled people in wheelchairs.
1.47 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate my noble kinswoman on the excellent way in which she has introduced the Bill today—but of course I am a little biased. I should also like to congratulate the honourable Member in the other place who presented the Bill. We have been told by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, that the Bill is like a baby and it is growing and growing. This is much to be welcomed.
Your Lordships may feel that you see addressing you today a very fit and healthy Lord. I must admit that the fact that I might look a little pallid is due to a temporary disability, since yesterday I went to celebrate the wedding of the son of my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is a purely temporary disability. Some of your Lordships might think that I am a little too large to be absolutely perfect, but on the whole I am a fairly fit chap. The people on whose behalf I wish to speak today are I believe not so often considered when the disabled are being discussed. If I call them the "pushers" that might attract a rather bad connotation, but they are the people who take charge of, and move about, people who are in wheelchairs. So on the whole I find myself very warmly in favour of the Bill and of making access easier.
Although I say to your Lordships that you see before you a fairly healthy person, during the last 10 years I have suffered from two hernias. I am not to say

1495
that they were either directly or indirectly a result of my having to push my noble kinswoman around the place. But I can certainly say that when you have a hernia, having to lug a wheelchair up a set of flights is probably not the best thing to do, and on those occasions before I could go on I either collapsed or sat down at the top of the stairs until the beastly thing went back into place. Therefore what is now being proposed will benefit not only people in wheelchairs, but other people, too.
What annoys me is the misuse of the orange badge scheme for parking. I am delighted that the penalties for parking in places reserved for disabled drivers are to be increased. But is there no way in which to deal with the misuse of the orange badge? I think one of the troubles is that the symbol of a wheelchair on the badge is not a good thing. I sometimes drop the noble Baroness off somewhere and go on myself to another meeting, or something, and I have her mobile badge in the car. I am glad to say (and I am not trying to blow my own trumpet or boast) that I have never yielded to the temptation of using it for parking myself somewhere on a yellow line and leaving the badge up, but the temptation is there.
I think that what perhaps annoys other motorists is to see somebody with a yellow badge stop their car, get out and walk away looking perfectly fit. I am quite aware that these people may well perhaps have a heart problem, or some sort of respiratory problem, or something like that, and that they are in fact disabled, but I think that in a way this is rather immaterial. It is a fact that stuck on the badge is the symbol of a wheelchair, and people think, "That person is not in a wheelchair and is therefore fit, and should not be allowed to park there". This makes people frustrated and angry. I was wondering whether there was any way in which the Government could consider a different badge of some sort for different forms of disability. I think this would be purely a public relations act, but would in fact make it more easy to weed out the sinners from those who are perfectly entitled to use a disabled badge.
I would also welcome the signposting of disabled facilities; but again—this is something I feel very strongly about, and I do not think it would cost any money—I was wondering whether an amendment could be made at some time to stop what I would say is the signposting of non-facilities. I have travelled around the country with my noble kinswoman and on one occasion we had to stay somewhere in the West Country. We looked in a guide (I think it was the AA handbook) to find a suitable hotel, and we found one with the symbol of a wheelchair against it. I rang up to book a room and they said they had a marvellous room with a specially-adapted too, wide doors which opened the right way, and all that. I said, "That's splendid; it sounds grand". They said, "Of course, it is up a flight of stairs". I said, "What do you mean—is it not suitable for disabled '?" "Oh, yes", they said, "once you get up the flight of stairs it is perfectly suitable for disabled"—and here it was in the book with a wheelchair symbol against it.
Also, I cannot believe that every single service station on every single motorway is in fact suitable to be coped with by somebody in a wheelchair; but it
1496
seems to me that every single one of them, since the passing of the last Act, has put up a little sign with a wheelchair on it. I think it may be a question rather like the animals of Animal Farm; every motorway station is suitable for disabled people, but some are more suitable than others. I wonder whether it might not he possible to bring in an amendment at some stage to provide a form of punishment for, as it were, advertising as being suitable when in fact they are not. This is a most maddening situation. People have rather "cottoned on" to the fact that it is a good thing to shove up a sign showing a little chap sitting in a wheelchair, and that all will then be well.
I remember another hotel that we stopped at for lunch coming down from the Borders of Scotland. I went down after lunch to use the lavatory, and there were terrific works going on. They were terribly pleased, and I said, "What are you doing"? They said, "Oh, we are building a brand-new loo for the disabled". I said, "Has it occurred to you that it is down nine steps?". They said, "We didn't think about that", and there they were in the middle of building it. Doubtless when they had finished they would have put up a little sign saying, "Disabled Loo". People do not think a great deal, and if there could be some form of pecuniary fine for people who misuse these signs I think it might not be a bad idea. I throw that out as a suggestion.
One thing that worries me a bit about this Bill (if I can use Lord Ingleby's metaphor of this being a baby) is that we might push too hard in trying to make too many amendments, so that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think we have to be careful. The Government have been very good, and have shown this week how they are prepared to give way in some respects. I just hope we do not press for too much. I can see that my scheme about the disabled badge could lead to all sorts of complications and might create more expense, but I really think that some form of legislation against the wrong signposting of facilities for the disabled might be a possibility. But I should like to welcome this Bill most warmly, like everybody else who has spoken in this House this afternoon.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I had the gravest doubt about putting my name down at all to speak in this debate, and I really only did so because I had to be here for another, similar debate and I did not at that time know what course to take. Having read and studied this admirable Bill, it does not seem to me specially apt for a Second Reading debate, which was the view taken in the House of Commons, where, so far as I can see, on Second Reading it was not discussed at all. That, I am sure, was a tribute to the authorship of the Bill and no doubt took into account the discussions which had already taken place there on the problem, which is a known problem and which has for years been one of the most difficult and intractable problems. Apart from the problems of expense, and apart from the problems of older buildings being adapted, and so on, for the purpose of access, on the other stages of the Bill we have always run up against the very real problem of enforcement.

1497
The noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod of Borve, was saying that in her part of the world—I am not quite sure where she lives, but I imagine it is south of the Trent—there is no provision at all. One of the reasons why people balk at making provision is that they say, first of all, that there is often no use made of it for considerable periods; but much more often they say, "The moment we put them up they are used by non-disabled people". It is very difficult, in almost all the circumstances they put up, to bring a prosecution and to enforce it. But that is not what I intended to say, my Lords.
What I intended to say to the noble Baroness and others is that I sometimes feel that you have to go north of the Border (and the House does not know all it should about the industrial north of England, and about the problems there) to see where the problems of disablement are particularly acute. I think that since the death of John Peel too few Members of this House have had the opportunity of becoming familiar with, say, industrial Lancashire. In Oldham, where the problem was acute and where we have the privilege of being built, like Rome, on seven hills—though they are not wholly similar in appearance or design—we have a large number of industrially disabled and, of course, we, too, took part in the war. The housing problems, which left few facilities and even a shortage of lavatory accommodation, presented quite special difficulties.
One of my constituents came to me and said, "Only the seriously disabled can comprehend and share the problems of the seriously disabled". That was his text: and he said that he proposed to build or to adapt a substantial building which would provide facilities where the disabled would he entertained, which would meet the problems of access and which would allow the disabled to sit in their chairs when they went into any part of the building to attend the entertainment inside. That was designed 20 years ago, and it was completed.
It is only when one gets the disabled together that one comes to the conclusion that the most serious ailment of all is probably loneliness. The loss of a husband or wife is the most complete loss one can have, and how is one going to deal with that?
My Lords, I apologise for going slightly upside down. The problems presented at the Second Reading were immediately resolved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who does speak, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said, with peculiar clarity. One recalls her speech in the debate on disablement in which she gave us a whole list of things, and today she has explained them word by word. From what was said earlier it is obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, that in view of what happened last Tuesday there will have to be discussions and presumably preliminary analysis before this Bill comes to Committee. It is not a matter of time because this is too important a subject to have any time limit. There is no reason why I should waste any more of your Lordships' time, but I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Elton, for showing once again her indomitable spirit coupled with her great ability in taking another useful and substantial step towards helping the disabled.
2.3 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Elton, for the excellent work she does not only on behalf of the disabled but also on behalf of many other organisations. I well remember when the noble Baroness and I went to Brussels and how she overcame all the difficulties she faced one after the other. That gave me a wonderful example of what can be done with determination. Her noble kinsman might like to know that during the time I was in the other House a party from Plymouth visited us for three or four days every year, travelling by coach. Many of them were pushed around in their wheelchairs both in this House and the other House and were also given tea on the Terrace. There were some difficulties, but we managed to overcome them quite happily. Perhaps I may just mention that we are constructing a special building in Plymouth for people who have suffered strokes and had accidents, where they can learn to speak and to use their limbs again. That building is due to be finished early next year at a cost of some £140,000 and I hope that some of your Lordships will be able to come down to see it. I hope that we have not made any mistakes with that building.
I should just like to emphasise one or two points including the wrongful parking of cars. Some of your noble Lordships with special badges have received parking tickets and know what to do with them, whereas many people do not and have to pay the fines. I should like to support what has been mentioned about badges. The yellow badge system is very badly abused. Quite a number of persons have one of these badges and, when the passenger to whom it relates is not in the car, they continue to take advantage of the facilities provided by the badge. Not only that, but a great number of badges are meant to be only temporary and are issued on the basis that once the person to whom the badge relates completely recovers, it will be returned. However, people go on using them beyond that time. I should like to suggest that, when a temporary badge is issued for a temporary disability, it should be valid for, say, three months and then it could be renewed if necessary. The temporary badge should be of a different colour; permanent badges could remain yellow but the temporary badge might be coloured purple so that the police could distinguish between the two. I should have thought that an initial period of three months in the case of a temporary badge was quite long enough.
I should also like to refer to the case of post offices and other public buildings. The interesting fact is that persons have to visit a post office to receive their mobility allowance and also their children's allowance. Very often they cannot get into the post office because there are steps, and it does seem very odd that proper provision is not made for them. It could he said that disabled people may have payment sent direct to their hank or giro account hut there are many members of the public who do not have bank or giro accounts.
I should like to see investigated the question of how many post offices are accessible to the disabled and whether or not those which do not offer access could have a cashpoint style dispenser in the wall so that, in the same way as one can go and obtain money from

1499
a cash dispenser outside an ordinary bank, the disabled would be able to obtain cash from those post offices which did not offer adequate access. Such a thing would be very helpful. It is very difficult in country districts. I have made small surveys in parts of London and also in Wiltshire and find that practically all the post offices are inaccessible to people in wheelchairs and also to those people mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who have to try to get into post offices with their inconvenient steps. Also mentioned has been the difficulty of getting across crossings. I should like to support the suggestion that when new crossings are made on paved roads, a portion of pavement on each side of the crossing should be made into a ramp. I think that a portion would be quite adequate for there are other people to consider besides those who are in wheelchairs.
The object of this Bill was well explained and discussed the other day, but I should like to ask about the new Section 8B which appears in Clause 6. It reads:
"The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on his proposals for ensuring or facilitating the improvement of means of access".
How often will he have to do this? It should be a continuing report because it takes a considerable time to get proposals going and to see that they are carried out. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the fact that Clause 7(2) reads:
"This Act shall come into force at the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed".
I think that three months is a very short time and it would be excellent if it could be done in that period. I should like to give my support to those who have spoken so well, and particularly to the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill today.
2.9 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I shall be brief because your Lordships have heard quite enough from me today. I must say a few brief words in support of my noble friend and her Bill. A close study of the form will reveal that my mind is more full of the odds against horses than against wheelchairs. Nevertheless, I am something of a practical expert in obstacles against wheelchairs. Therefore, I must say a few words about it. I have been following closely (and took part in) the debate on the Committee stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and therefore I have followed closely the development of this Bill in conjunction with that Bill. It is my hope that neither of these Bills will fall. As much as I welcome this particular Bill, if it is in order now to say so, I particularly welcome what the Government intend to put into it as an amendment. It is my belief that to bring the planning laws into the subject of the disabled needs is a great step forward and one which could be used in several instances. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will have to say on this.
I couple that with a brief word of support for the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ingleby that each local authority will brief one of their existing personnel to deal with the whole subject of access for the disabled.
1500
It seems to me—and I said this on the Scottish Bill—that it is only a matter of common sense and that there is no need for tremendous technical expertise. I hope that something along those lines will find its way into this Bill and into the Scottish Bill. I must also put on record a word of appreciation of what my noble friend Lord Ingleby has been doing in this field over the past few months. In his quiet, persistent way he has achieved a great amount. That is a wonderful example to the more raucous elements who take up the cause of the disabled in other directions. He achieved far more by quiet, reasoned argument than do some people with their vociferous performances outside. I hope the Government will see their way to supporting his view on this question of access. I am sorry to say—although your Lordships may be delighted to know it—that I have not prepared a long speech on this Bill because of my thoughts on the complex matter of horseracing. I simply want to support the Bill.
2.12 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the list. I shall keep the House for only two minutes or so. I should like to say with what enthusiasm I greet this Bill and how optimistic I feel, having listened to all the speeches today. I think that there is a real head of steam in this country today wanting to do something practical and helpful on this particular problem. I should like to congratulate the Government and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for getting the amendment into the Scottish Bill. I think that that will be a great help in Scotland and I hope that it will apply also to England.
I should like to say two things. First, I am not afraid of the future. I think that we have got people and local authorities all keyed up about buildings; although what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said about the new Barclays Bank building was depressing. It is a fine building although I have never tried to get inside it. It was depressing to hear that this brand new building did not allow access to the disabled. But I am concerned more about existing buildings. Not enough stress is put on the fact that they could be altered without great expense if people had imagination. Architects have the skills, and we can get the advice from all these people who have had long experience of living in a disabled world and also living with non-handicapped people.
My noble friend Lady Vickers is right about post offices. I have hardly seen a post office where you do not need to climb steps in order to get inside. These things can be altered, and I feel that this is a moment when we want to take advantage of all the goodwill and the enthusiasm there is behind this subject.
I had a lot of experience in one or two local authorities and when we were building houses we insisted that one or two of them should be suitable for handicapped people. They were a great success. When sometimes such a house in a particular area was not wanted it was perfectly possible for a non-handicapped person to live there. Therefore, there was no trouble about it at all. The idea of building one or two little houses which had access for the disabled was something new in the days when I was involved. That is probably done now in other local authorities. However, I

1501
hope it is something that will be looked at. Birmingham—where I have some contact now with the disabled—is doing a splendid job in equipping flats and houses for disabled people who are learning to live with their disablement but in the community. I shall not say any more, except that I enthusiastically support the Bill. I hope the Government will go ahead with it as fast as they possibly can.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I intervene for one moment only to voice my warm support for the Bill. I should like to add one detail to the very interesting list of practical suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, about people who walk with the aid of crutches or sticks. She did not add the necessity of having handrails on staircases. That is a facility that I often miss in daily life in the buildings around which I walk in London today. A few years ago I had a very heavy fall in what is known as the Palace of the United Nations in Geneva. I fell down seven marble steps where there was no handrail. That left me with a permanent injury. This is an important point, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for what she was good enough to say, and all those who have lent their support to the Bill.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker regarding the need for handrails. I have personal experience in this matter, though the lady concerned will kill me if I mention her by name. There is a need in her case for a handrail, and I had to fix one on part of our stairs on her release from hospital. I fixed the handrail in far better fashion than I normally would. Unfortunately, having covered it with its first coat of paint, I stepped back to admire my work and kicked a tin of paint down the stairs, covering both the walls and the stairs. Consequently, I was then closer to tears than I had been all my life! Perhaps I should not have said that, hut I strongly agree with the noble Lord that this is one of the things which some people seem to overlook.
My Lords, may I welcome this Bill? It had a formal passage in another place. That was due to rather fortunate circumstances—it was probably late on a Friday and nobody said "No" when the Bill was put forward. That was a lucky streak so far as the noble Baroness and all who are disabled are concerned. If some idiot had said "No", then the Bill would have gone right down the list, as some of those who have served in another place know.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to the cry "Object" rather than "No". This is a device in the other place when people feel that a debate is necessary. They are not objecting to the Bill; they are objecting to it going through without debate. I am sure we agree with the noble Lord that in this case there was so much support for the Bill that the other place was ready for it to go through without debate.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord corrects me. It is correct to say "Object". We
1502
know that on many occasions many worthy Bills have gone down the scale simply because of that. Therefore time is lost.
This is an excellent Bill and I am personally delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and her formidable team of campaigners—and there is no other word to describe them—have decided to take the golden opportunity of a Second Reading. The number of speakers who have taken part is an indication of the interest taken in this Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness on having taken charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House. In my view, there is no one better able to do it. This is an excellent and urgently needed Bill. After all, it is the International Year of Disabled People and it is fitting that the Bill should proceed through Parliament at this time.
If I may add a personal note, I thought it rather appropriate that I should wear the tie given to me in Hong Kong to celebrate the International Year of the Disabled. I was assured by those in Hong Kong who presented it to me that it would serve as an indication to Britain that the people in Hong Kong are determined to make the most of the International Year of the Disabled as far as their people are concerned.
This Bill is comprehensive in character and I particularly welcome Clause 6 and the reference in Clause 2 to places of entertainment, exhibitions or sporting events. When I made my maiden speech in this House some six years ago I mentioned wheelchairs at football matches. Coincidentally, in that debate I was followed by the noble Baroness herself. Unfortunately, very few football grounds have suitable and adequate arrangements for disabled people in wheelchairs. If the clubs themselves cannot afford to meet the financial cost, perhaps the supporters' clubs could raise the money, in the same fashion as they raise money to help to buy expensive players.
I do not see any specific reference in the Bill to holiday facilities. I appreciate, of course, that it would be very difficult to deal in the Bill with holiday facilities or with holidays, but it is something that needs attention. This also gives me the opportunity to relate to the House an inspiring experience I had recently. My wife and I made an eight-day cruise on the P and 0 liner "Canberra". We were very interested to notice a number of people going around the ship in wheelchairs. There were plenty of lifts and it was quite easy for them to get around, but they mostly had some degree of capacity for walking.
There was one man who was being pushed around all over the place. He was always on the go day and night, taking an active interest in all facilities. Many of us noticed the care and attention given to this chap in the wheelchair by the young attendant. An opportunity came when Harry—I found out that was the name of the man in the wheelchair—was being chatted up by a rather attractive lady on the sun-deck and the attendant had a chance to have a break for himself. I had a chat with the young man and found that he came from the Islington Day Centre which is one of the social services run by the social services department of Islington Borough Council and that, as a matter of fact, he was a welfare worker. I found that his job was to dress and undress this particular man, to get him around and generally look after him.
I made further inquiries, and the story is even more

1503
interesting because I found that Harry, who attends the Islington day centre, is quite a character and has always had the idea of going on a cruise as one of his life's ambitions. He mentioned at the day centre that he was going to advertise for somebody to take care of him on the ship and take him around. The day centre people said: "Don't worry; we think we can get somebody", and Ivor (I will not mention his surname for obvious reasons), who is one of the assistants at the day centre, voluntarily gave up a week's leave out of his leave entitlement to go and assist Harry to enjoy his holiday.
That, my Lords, is a wonderful example of those people in public service who give up some of their spare time to assist people like Harry, and I can assure the House that when we said farewell to Harry and Ivor at Waterloo Station when we got off the boat train, no chap in the world had had such a wonderful holiday as Harry. He had had the time of his life.
I understand on further inquiry that, in the normal run of things, Islington have two holiday schemes for the disabled in Britain, on which Ivor and many other workers are busily engaged. I want to emphasise that not one penny of public money was involved in the cruise. It was a voluntary effort by one of the staff who gave up his holiday.
There are a number of authorities which are running holiday schemes for the disabled, and I can only express the hope—I am not making a political point—that pressure by the Department of the Environment will not lead to the reduction or abandonment of holiday schemes for the disabled, in an effort to reduce the rate burden. I do not think, in all decency, that any council could do such a thing; though, unfortunately, I could mention one that has.
The Bill, welcome as it is, deals with the future when it becomes law. The fact is that quite a lot of work needs to be done now on existing roads, crossings, toilets, public buildings et cetera. This was underlined recently in a television programme—I think it was "Nationwide", but ITV will forgive me if it was not—when a London MP was seen pushing a wheelchair with a handicapped lady in it, in order to experience the difficulties which arise in getting on and off pavements, entering a post office—as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned—and the other problems which the physically fit do not comprehend. Those people who have experienced such problems can understand, but there are quite a lot of people—nice people—who do not.
There are a number of good local authorities which have done, and are doing, excellent work in the provision of facilities, signs and other works to assist the disabled, and I can say from past experience that Norwich, which I once represented, is just such a good authority. But there are far too many which are dragging their feet. While the Government are putting pressure on local authorities to reduce expenditure, there is every moral and practical justification for the Government to put pressure on local authorities and public undertakings to spend money on a campaign to improve and provide facilities for the disabled. I sincerely hope that, in general, the Minister will agree with me on this.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the
1504
House. This has been a very good debate and we are anxious to hear the Minister's reply. This is a good Bill which is worthy of support, and I trust that the House will expedite its passage in order that it may become law at the earliest possible moment. But I want to utter a word of warning, which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has also hinted at. We must not be over-enthusiastic about Committee amendments. I trust that the Committee and other stages will not be too protracted. Legislative time is drawing very short indeed, and it would be a great pity, even a tragedy, if time defeated this Bill. From these Benches, we pledge support for this Bill: in fact, we give it enthusiastic support.
2.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, I should like, on behalf of all your Lordships, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her speech and, quite particularly to thank her for bringing before us this measure which has already been passed in another place with all-party support.
In this International Year of Disabled People, I am delighted that we are to have an opportunity to place on the statute book a measure that is likely to bring real benefit to the lives of disabled people. One of the many praiseworthy aims of the International Year is the "full participation and equality" of disabled people in the ordinary everyday activities which the more fortunate able-bodied members of the community take for granted. The Government fully support all the aims and objectives of the Year, which has already proved itself to be an excellent opportunity for stimulating public interest in the problems and aspirations of disabled people, and it is fitting that in this particular year Parliament should be considering the problems of access and mobility—problems to which not only the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but my noble friend Lady Macleod and many of your Lordships have drawn attention this afternoon.
The Disabled Persons Bill recognises that the integration of disabled people into the community inevitably involves improving access to buildings. Knowing that acceptance and a warm welcome is waiting inside a building does not make a long flight of steps any less of a barrier to someone in a wheelchair. I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with the view that since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was passed over a decade ago, substantial gains have been achieved in the access and other facilities provided for disabled people in public buildings. However, that should not make us complacent, and where a measure such as the one before us today seems likely to bring about further improvements I am sure that it will command widespread support. In expressing the Government's support for the Bill, I should like to add a rider with which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, would agree. Legislation is an important part of the business of this House and of the other place and, when faced with problems in society, it is often a temptation for us to consider first how far they can be met by changes in the law. In this question of the integration of disabled people, however, while the law must obviously play a part, the essential answers to the problem must be sought in

1505
the hearts and minds of the able-bodied majority. We want to work towards a situation in which the needs and wishes of the disabled are generally and freely recognised, and not one where they are imposed by force of law.
For that reason, I would suggest that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has probably been more important in its effect on attitudes than in its direct effects of a mandatory kind. And I believe that when we look back in another 10 years at the outcome of the present Bill, should it become an Act, we shall be impressed by the success it will have achieved in influencing public opinion and guiding people's attitudes in a helpful direction. I recognise, however, particularly after the stories from personal experience which we have heard from my noble friends Lady Macleod of Borve and Lord Swinton, that we still have quite a long way to go. I would suggest that this essential role of the Bill is one which we should keep constantly in our minds in our detailed consideration of its provisions.
My honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has sought to give the sponsors of the Bill all the assistance he can in the drafting of a legally satisfactory measure. I think that some of the ideas which have been incorporated in two clauses of the Bill may well have found their way there following suggestions made by my honourable friend. One of these clauses, Clause 5, is designed to improve the signposting of access facilities, such as routes of travel for disabled people to and within buildings. The other, Clause 2, creates a separate offence of wrongful parking in spaces reserved for disabled people, with an enhanced penalty for those found guilty of the offence.
This is a thoughtless and selfish act, and it is right that we should be thinking in terms of more severe penalties. In addition, reference has already been made to the statement made by my noble friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office that the Government intend to strengthen certain clauses dealing with access in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and will be tabling amendments to that effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, whose amendment this originally was, asked me whether we should be consulting interested bodies. I should like to confirm that we shall be having those consultations before the regulations implementing that provision are framed. He also asked me about the timetable for its implementation. The most useful answer I can give to him this afternoon is that we shall accept the same timetable as that which my noble friend Lord Mansfield made for the Scottish Bill.
I am very glad to announce that the Government now feel able to go even further to prevent abuse of parking facilities for disabled people. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been concerned for some time about something which I think we would all agree is even more reprehensible than the conduct which Clause 2 seeks to discourage. I refer to misuse of the disabled drivers' orange badge by people, such as relatives of badge holders, who are not entitled to the privileges the badge confers but who nevertheless seek, by using it, to take advantage of the special parking facilities provided for disabled people.
These facilities, besides the special reserved parking
1506
spaces with which Clause 2 is concerned, include a range of exemptions from normal parking restrictions, such as being able to park on yellow lines. At the moment people who use orange badges under false pretences cannot normally be proceeded against other than for an ordinary parking offence, which in most cases means that they simply get a fixed penalty notice. This is hardly an adequate penalty for what is in reality an act of fraud or deception. The Government consider that this abuse, of displaying an orange badge to obtain its privileges when one is not entitled to do so, which seems to be on the increase and is tending to bring the whole scheme into disrepute, should be made a specific offence, as well as being a parking offence.
The proposed new offence, which requires main legislation, would help to make it clear that there is a stigma attached to abuse of a system intended to help the disabled; and the Government feel that it would be appropriate for it to carry a maximum penalty of £200–considerably more than magistrates are accustomed to impose as parking fines in cases where it is decided to prosecute. I have no doubt that this is a proposal which will be generally welcomed and the Government propose to make provision by means of an amendment to the present Bill at Committee stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, raised the point about the possibility of having two badges for disabled drivers. I think that is really a Committee matter, to which we should return, but the House may be interested to know that on the last census of badge holders there were some 220,000 people who held badges and that figure is now thought to be nearer a quarter of a million. It is very important to strike a balance between the needs of the disabled and other road users and the limits to what could be done.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if I may intervene, I think my noble friend has left the question of access and I hope this is a convenient pause between subjects because I wish to thank her for giving an indication of the timetable; but I had one other question, concerning Northern Ireland. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that this would be extended to the whole country. This Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. So is my noble friend able to give an indication of whether the Government will take an early opportunity to consider that fourth part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if my noble friend will wait until I have concluded my remarks, I think he may hear what he would like to hear.
The two clauses and the Government amendments stem from the recognition that access does not just mean ramps. There are so many ways in which a building can be inaccessible or inconvenient for those who have less than perfect mobility, sight or hearing, and although this Bill seeks to make certain improvements, it would be quite impossible—even if it were desirable—to legislate to cover every situation. That is one of the reasons why we have given our wholehearted support to the Committee on Restrictions

1507
Against Disabled People. This committee was established by the last Government in January 1979 with the following terms of reference:
"To consider the architectural and social barriers which may result in discrimination against disabled people and prevent them from making full use of facilities available to the general public; and to make recommendations".
The committee hopes to report to Ministers by the end of this year, and I have no doubt that when it does report your Lordships will wish to consider, more fully than it is practicable for us to do on the basis of the present Bill, the whole range of problems which disabled people face in a modern society and the ways in which they can be tackled most effectively.
My Lords, I am also glad to confirm to the House, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, that we also intend to introduce an amendment at Committee stage to make it possible for the provisions in the Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland.
Before concluding my remarks on this Bill, I should like to say something on a matter which does not immediately arise on the Bill but did on the Scottish Local Government Bill, and which has been referred to by a number of your Lordships; namely, the appointment of access officers. It is argued that local authorities should have a statutory duty to designate access officers. Local authorities clearly have an important role in ensuring the improvement of facilities for the disabled. The question is whether this should be done by statute or left to local authorities to decide how best to organise their responsibilities. The imposition of such a statutory duty would be a very exceptional interference by central Government with local government affairs and organisation. We would, therefore, need to consider this very carefully, and the House will no doubt appreciate that on this particular point we can give at this stage no commitment about this matter.
However, what I should like to confirm is that the Government are committed to the issuing of a circular to local authorities to give guidance on this Bill and related matters. I should like to confirm that it is always the practice of Governments to consult on circulars, clearly with the local authorities in this case, but in this particular case we would also consult in relation to the circular with interested bodies. I can give noble Lords the undertaking today that we shall consider sympathetically how we can advise authorities on their arrangements and staffing in connection with the access provisions of the 1970 Act and their new obligation to draw the attention of developers to them.
Meantime, we have this Bill before us. Its objectives are modest, but I suggest no less worthy for all that; I am glad to reiterate the Government's support, and I look forward with interest to our further proceedings on it.
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the helpful support and goodwill your Lordships give to disabled people in this noble House is most encouraging. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, giving special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for his support for the Bill and his wishes for its speedy
1508
passage through your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; as a member of the International Year of the Disabled Peoples' Committee myself, I should like to thank him for so clearly explaining the importance of access for disabled people. At every International Year of Disabled People meeting I have attended access has been one of the main issues; integration and participation for disabled people is so difficult without adequate access, and independence is impossible.
My thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, for illustrating so well the varied needs of disabled people, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for his very important point on the wheelchair signs being used for access and properly used. This was very well developed by my noble kinsman when he stressed the very important point that good access is a way of preventing disability of able-bodied people.
I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for the important point of suitable places of entertainment for disabled people and that they should not be isolated. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, stressed the need for updating the parking badge and stopping its abuse, and I thank her for that. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for his experienced support, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, for the hope for the future. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, for his intervention on the very important need for handrails on staircases, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for his overall support and for stressing that disabled people have the same variety of interests as anyone else; this was very good to hear. I agree with him as to how important holidays are for disabled people and for their relatives.
Lastly, but most important of all, I would express thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She does work, as we all know, so very hard, and she is always brought in by the Government to speak on important issues and on difficult ones in your Lordships' House. I sincerely hope she will not find this difficult. I do not see why she should, because this Bill has had support from every single one of your Lordships who has spoken. I do stress that this is important, and I am glad for this reason that she is here with us. I would agree with Lady Young that attitudes are very important. The problem is that the general public very often do not know, or do not think about, the needs of the disabled. Also, the abuse of the parking badge shows how important legislation is. I am very pleased to hear the good news that Northern Ireland is to be included.
The noble Baroness concluded her remarks by referring to access officers. It is very important that we have the goodwill of the local authorities. I hope that my colleagues who are interested in this matter will go along with the Government as they are being very helpful with this Bill, and we hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
I should like to conclude with one matter which has arisen today and that is to do with the blind and your Lordships' House. The Secretary of the National Federation of the Blind very much wanted to attend today's debate, but could not do so because of problems with her guide dog. An exemption from the rule of "no dogs at Westminster" is made for guide dogs,

1509
but they are not allowed in the Public Gallery. Many guide dogs, because of their training, become very upset and make a commotion if separated from the blind person. It is hoped that these dogs could be allowed into the Gallery because beside their masters or mistresses they are very quiet and docile. They become part of the blind person, they are really as important as his or her right hand. I hope that your Lordships will consider this matter and help in this the International Year of Disabled People. I thank all noble Lords for their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION
  MR. GEORGE HEATH
  MR. GEORGE HEATH