Sitting of 9 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PETERBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  PRESTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Geriatric Beds (Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present shortfall of geriatric beds in each of the Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley area health authority districts.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): The average daily number of geriatric beds available in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham in the year ended 31 December 1979 was 245, 293 and 280 respectively, compared with an estimated requirement of 308, 362 and 315. I share the hon. Member's concern that there is a shortfall of 63 beds in Barnsley, 69 in Doncaster and 35 in Rotherham.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that the Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley area health authorities, pressurised by the consultants, are bringing forward schemes to ensure that the Montagu hospital, regardless of the effect on the patients in the area covered by that hospital, becomes a geriatric hospital? Will the Minister look into the matter, because of the grave effect that it will have on the people in the large area that is covered by the Montagu hospital who will suffer tremendously if the scheme that has been promoted by the consultants through the area health authorities is to be allowed?
    Dr. Vaughan: I understand and share the hon. Member's concern about this matter. It has now been decided to keep the Montagu hospital as an acute general hospital. The hon. Gentleman's real concern was about the Fullerton hospital and the change to a geriatric function there. I shall certainly look into the matter. I am concerned that the facilities in that part of the country should be improved.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend's real and genuine concern would be relieved somewhat if better financial provision were made for
    250
    geriatric rehabilitation, better community services and the full implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in this respect?
    Dr. Vaughan: One of our priorities has been to shift resources more towards geriatric care. A result has been the White Paper "Growing Older", and recently the "Care in Action" handbook. There has been a general improvement throughout the country in geriatric services care. Some of the figures given to us suggest that the number of acute beds for geriatrics is adequate. We are short in the part-way arrangements between acute hospital and fully at home services; that is why we are so keen on nursing homes provision in the National Health Service.

    District General Hospitals
    Mr. Conlanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make an announcement on the future size of district general hospitals.
    Dr. Vaughan: We are still considering the comments received on the consultative document issued last year. My right hon. Friend or I will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Conlan: Does the Minister recall that he told me in January that he might be expected to make a statement by the end of March? Is he aware that the continuing delay is affecting the morale of hospital staff generally, particularly at the excellent acute psychiatric hospital of St. Mary's at Stannington? Will he take all possible steps to telescope further discussion and consultation so that a decision and an announcement can be made soon?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes, I am well aware that I wrote to the hon. Member saying that we hoped to reach conclusions in about two months. There have been more comments on the consultative document than we had expected —over 400. We are examining them as quickly as possible and we hope to be able to make an announcement within a short time. Meanwhile, I am aware of the anxieties of St. Mary's hospital, Stannington. If there are any steps that we can take to reassure the staff there I should like to discuss them with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend try to incorporate in any announcement a statement on the casualty services that should be provided in district general hospitals, including details of the opening times?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes, that is one of the aspects that we are particularly considering. In many parts of the country it is on this aspect that the main anxieties of the local communities lie —the fear that they will not have adequate accident and emergency services near people's places of work. We are bearing that in mind.

    Drugs
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the actual cost of drugs dispensed in England during the two-year period 1978 to 1980.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): £564 million in 1978–79 and £643 million in 1979–80. This does not include hospital dispensing.
    Mr. Marks: Is not that a large increase when the number of prescriptions has been reduced? Is the right

    251
    hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has been no unnecessary inflation of drug prices? Will he perhaps restrict the increases in future to 6 per cent., just as he is restricting the pay rises of the health workers?
    Mr. Jenkin: The prescription pricing scheme aims to maintain strict control over the level of prices and profitability of drugs supplied to the NHS. Of course, we keep the scheme under regular review, but at present, apart from minor changes, we are operating the scheme exactly as it has been operated over recent years. If the hon. Member has any suggestions for improving it I shall be happy to listen to them.
    Mrs. Knight: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that expensive drugs are not wasted in NHS hospitals? Can he give the amount spent on drugs by hospitals?
    Mr. Jenkin: I cannot answer the latter part of the question without notice. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is of the utmost importance that pharmacists and doctors in hospitals should prescribe economically. Of course, the hospital drugs service is subject to the overall cash limit disciplines that apply to health authorities. There is, therefore, a built-in constraint that does not apply to the family practitioner services. I was also concerned —this was the pattern a short while ago —that because of the cash limit discipline out-patients were being asked to get drugs from their general practitioners rather than from the hospital pharmacy. Clearly that was just a method of evading the cash limit. We want to ensure that there is economical prescribing both in hospitals and in general practice.
    Mr. Pavitt: Why have the Government rejected the advice of the British Medical Association on the revised British National Formulary to get rid of the hundreds of worthless drugs that are currently being prescribed? Will he consider establishing something like the MacGregor committee on the efficacy of drugs to operate in addition to the committee on the safety of medicines?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have for the first time obtained the agreement of the BMA to make up an informal working group with my Department to examine effective prescribing. That represents a marked step by the doctors towards recognising the importance not only of economy in prescribing but of making sure that appropriate drugs are prescribed for and taken by patients. I therefore set considerable store by the move and I shall be reviewing the work of the working group at around the end of the year. I hope that it will lead to the more effective prescribing which all parties want.
    Mr. Terry Davis: If the cost of drugs has increased by about 12 per cent., how does the Secretary of State justify the far bigger increase in prescription charges?
    Mr. Jenkin: We always made it clear that we should like those who used the services to bear a higher proportion of the cost. I prefer to do that rather than to cut the service. My predecessor chose to slash back capital investment in the Health Service while refusing even to budge on prescription charges. That was a gravely mistaken priority. I believe that by maintaining the level of capital investment and asking patients to pay a bit more in charges we have the priorities right.

    Pharmaceutical Services
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual cost of the administration of the pharmaceutical services scheme to the National Health Service.
    Dr. Vaughan: Assuming that the hon. Member means payments to pharmacists other than the cost of ingredients, that was £205 million out of a total of £801 million in 1980. If he is asking about the cost of our family practitioner committees, that is not available, I am afraid, but I can tell him that the cost of the prescription pricing authority was £8·1 million in 1979–80.
    Mr. Freeson: I take the qualification that the Minister made. How do the figures that he has quoted relate to the amount that has been recovered by prescription charge increases of 400 per cent. during the last two years? Has not this tax on ill health produced a minimal saving to the NHS?
    Dr. Vaughan: No, I cannot accept that. Prescription charges yield about £80 million, which is a major contribution to the costs of the NHS. We are, however, carefully watching the administrative costs in all sections of the NHS with a view to improving the service generally.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that the local pharmacy plays a vital role in our community health care services? What is the latest position on the closure of pharmacies? Are the numbers now stabilising?
    Dr. Vaughan: Pharmacies are a most important part of our Health Service. There were 8,720 pharmacists in 1980. The trend of closures has been as follows. In 1975 the number was, overall, 209 down. In 1979 it was 38 down, and in 1980 the change was nil. We are therefore maintaining the numbers of pharmacists.
    Mr. Skinner: We do not expect this Tory Government to enact any part of Labour Party policy, including that of nationalising the pharmaceutical industry. That will be dealt with in due process of time when we have a Socialist Administration, after we have got rid of this Government. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of applying in this area what the Tories have appeared to set as a precedent in others —namely, a windfall profits tax? It was used to a degree in the case of North Sea oil. It was also applied to the banks to the tune of £400 million. Will he extend the principle and impose a windfall profits tax on the pharmaceutical industry?
    Dr. Vaughan: The answer is "No". That is an unnecessary question. Pharmacists' profits are carefully monitored.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any assessment has been made of the cost to the National Health Service of the effects of unemployment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): No, Sir. Such an assessment would depend on being able to determine whether and in what ways unemployment alone affects health, what effects this has on demand for NHS services and the cost of that demand. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) on 27

    253
    April —[Vol. 3, c. 346]—we are already sponsoring some work to assess the relationship between unemployment and health and the effects on health services, and are considering what further work is required.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister seen the work of Professor Harvey Brenner, a research scientist in the United States, who has shown that there is a clear link between mortality, unemployment and increased expenditure on health services? Will the Minister conduct an investigation in one of our regions that is suffering from particularly high unemployment —for example, the Northern region —to see whether there is a link to be established? If he does that, will he publish his findings so that we may all read them with great interest?
    Sir George Young: I am familiar with the work of Professor Brenner. The Department is trying to replicate such work here. We are sponsoring research at Queen Mary college seeking to replicate Professor Brenner's work into the correlation between unemployment and mortality. We hope that the results will be available next year and that they will be published.
    Mr. Foster: Is it not well known that there is an increased incidence of illness among the unemployed? Are not the unemployment black spots also the health black spots? Will the Minister make great efforts to give top priority to diverting resources to areas which are both unemployment and health black spots, such as the North-East?
    Sir George Young: It is clear that unemployment can cause stress. It is reasonable to assume that there is some association between unemployment and health. A specific study by Dr. Fagin of 22 families showed that in some cases health worsened as a result of unemployment, but that in a few cases it improved; that shows the difficulty of drawing conclusions.
    On the question of the funding of the NHS, those regions that are under-funded will catch up by implementation of the RAWP procedure.
    Mr. Woodall: How does the Minister relate his reply to the recent statement by the Institute for Cancer Research that it is to mace 50 members of its staff redundant due of a shortfall in cash, which has been caused because no provision has been made to take account of the effect of inflation on the money that it receives from donations and covenants? Would it not be better if the Secretary of State tried to help that institute to keep the 50 workers in employment?
    Sir George Young: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point arises directly out of the main question. I think that he is referring to an early-day motion which is addressed to the Treasury, not my Department.

    Nurses (Private Hospitals)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in arrangements for private hospitals to contribute to the cost of training nurses.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Nurse training is being undertaken in a number of private hospitals and the private sector is considering how it might further increase its contribution to staff training.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State aware that a private hospital being built near my constituency is being promoted by consultants who place private greed before the public need and the need of the NHS? What measures will he take to ensure that the private sector makes a contribution towards training, instead of drawing like parasites from the public sector, including from hospitals such as the Airedale general hospital in my constituency? They draw on people trained at the public expense. The training is lengthy and expensive. What will he do to make the private sector contribute to that expense?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am aware that a 45–bed hospital is currently being built in Bingley. I am not aware of any evidence that that development will jeopardise the staffing of local NHS hospitals. On the contrary, we believe that the existence of the private sector is to the advantage of the NHS as a whole. It brings additional resources to health care and relieves some of the burden on the NHS.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of knocking the private sector and the growing number of trade unions that take advantage of it, the Opposition should acknowledge that the growth of the private sector is bringing additional and much-needed resources into health care? Does it not also increase the supply of doctors and nurses in the NHS as a whole?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. It is another example of the Opposition being wholly out of touch with the majority of public opinion.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State is being specious today. Does he not well know that where there are private developments there is clear evidence that NHS staff are creamed off because of the extra pay that can be offered by the private sector? Why is he not honest enough to say that in his opinion privilege is always preferable to providing proper training, which is what the NHS is doing?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have always made it clear that we wish to ensure that private developments do not prejudice the NHS. As the hon. Lady well knows, that is why in the 1980 Act we retained some of the control procedures that allow the Government to take steps to protect the NHS if health authorities feel that private development may prejudice their services, especially the recruitment of staff. As yet, no health authority has thought fit to invoke that section.

    Health Facilities (Contractual Arrangements)
    Mr. Cunliffeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if it is his policy that all contractual arrangements entered into by the National Health Service to provide facilities for non-National Health Service units should be chargeable at the full economic rate.
    Sir George Young: It is for the local health authority to determine the level of charges for NHS services provided to non-NHS establishments. Charges should normally cover the full cost, including any capital costs, of the NHS providing the service, but a more flexible approach may be adopted where this would be beneficial to the NHS.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does not the Minister agree that he is unashamedly subsidising private medicine by suggesting that short-term spare capacity arrangements can be made

    255
    with the NHS? Why does he suggest giving priority to private medicine when he is disposing of surplus NHS land? Is that not a class determination to ensure that the private sector can hive off facilities from the NHS?
    Sir George Young: No, Sir. The contracts to which the hon. Gentleman referred that might use spare capacity in the private sector would be used to tackle the NHS waiting list. It would be in the interests of NHS patients if the relationship was developed.

    District Health Authorities
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make arrangements to ensure that the new district health authorities maintain close working relationships with their appropriate local government authorities.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir—I beg your pardon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: That is probably the quickest U-turn that we have seen from the Government. Does the Minister agree that, in preventive medicine, geriatrics and child care, it is of the utmost importance to have close collaboration between the NHS and the local authorities? In that context, does he agree that it would be infinitely preferable to have one district health authority for the whole of Sheffield, rather than splitting Sheffield artificially into two districts?
    Mr. Jenkin: We attach great importance to maintaining effective collaboration between health authorities and local government. I plan to issue a circular later this year that will draw attention to the need for proper arrangements. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a statutory obligation to have a joint consultative committee. That provision was contained in the 1980 Act. Members of local authorities will be appointed to serve on the new district health authorities.
    To ensure that the arrangements are properly monitored, I am asking regional health authorities to report to the Government on the arrangements that are agreed locally between health authorities and local authorities. The hon. Gentleman referred to Sheffield. I hope to announce shortly a decision on the new district health authorities in the Trent region.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend encourage health authorities to develop close working relationships with the broadcasting authorities to prevent distorted and unfair portrayals of the work of the NHS? I ask that especially in the light of the criticisms expressed today by the Under-Secretary about a proposed ATV documentary. What representations do my right hon. Friend or the local health authority intend to make about the programme?
    Mr. Jenkin: I hope to see the programme tomorrow. I want to see what the fuss is all about. The Berkshire area health authority is holding a press conference this afternoon. It will have some pretty rough words to say about the producer of the film and about the way in which it was taken in Borocourt hospital, outside Reading. I do not want to anticipate that.
    There is a need for much closer understanding between the broadcasting authorities and health authorities. I am encouraging health authorities to collaborate with the broadcasting authorities whenever possible. I hope that my
    256
    hon. Friend recognises that there have been many useful, well-balanced programmes about special hospitals. However, the issue requires fair play on both sides. I am not sure that that is always achieved.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) asked a separate question that should have appeared on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Secretary of State assure us that such districts as Kingston upon Hull will have adequate representation in proportion to their conurbations on whatever new authority is established in their areas? When will the new proposals for Humberside be published?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am hoping to publish shortly the proposals for all the regions. There was widespread support for the view that district health authorities should be smaller in numbers than the existing area health authorities, and also for the view that within the new reduced number a local authority representation of four members on each district health authority should be the norm. That is what we are proposing.

    Pensions
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many employees in the United Kingdom are covered by pension schemes contracted out of the State scheme.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The latest figures indicate that 11·8 million employees are members of occupational pension schemes and of these, over 10 million are in contracted-out employment.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In the opinion of my hon. Friend, do those figures reveal that the contracted-out provisions have been a success and that a substantial number of people have obtained benefits under them outside the State system, many of which are better than those minima which they would otherwise have obtained?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes. I am glad to affirm our continuing commitment to the contracted-out partnership. It is true that the contracted-out arrangements have been successful. The number now in contracted-out employment is far greater than envisaged when the legislation was placed on the statute book. In many instances those in contracted-out employment have a second pension which is of greater value, but as the State second pension scheme builds up over coming years it will be an essential part of the future provision for those in retirement.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will be in a position to make his statement on the future of the death grant.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): We are continuing our consideration of all aspects of the death grant and we shall make an announcement as soon as this is complete.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Minister realise that when the last increase was effected it met 70 per cent. of the cost

    257
    of a modest funeral whereas the present rate meets only 10 per cent. because of spiralling costs? Does he agree that this is a meagre payment and that the present rate should be increased substantially and urgently, especially as retirement pensioners, due to their age, are unable to insure themselves for proper cover to meet the cost of burial?
    Mr. Rossi: I am well aware that since the death grant was first introduced in 1949 at £20 it has increased only to £30, since when the gap between that sum and the cost of a funeral has grown considerably. This is a matter that is receiving urgent attention, which has not been given to it in the past by successive Governments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to report to the House as soon as our deliberations have been completed.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I accept what my right hon. Friend said at the British Legion conference —namely, that it was his intention to try to come forward with proposals at an early date. Will he bear in mind that the situation in Britain is such that many more people are so poorly off when it comes to meeting death expenses that a greater number are having to be interred in paupers' graves? Will he endeavour to come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible with information on an increase in the death grant?
    Mr. Rossi: Yes.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister recognise that at this level of urgency we shall all be dead before he makes a report? By how much has the value of the death grant decreased since the Government came into power? Are they not content with making the sick and the elderly suffer in their lifetime? Do they intend to penalise their successors after death?
    Mr. Rossi: If the Government were to restore the level of the death grant to its value in 1949, it would require about £120 million in all to make the grant available for every death.

    Overseas Visitors
    Mr. Woolmerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he expects the imposition of charges on overseas visitors to have central, regional or area staffing implications.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Woolmer: If there is a requirement to ask overseas visitors to provide some proof of residence or length of stay in the United Kingdom, is not this certain to increase the demands upon staff time? Even more important, is not there the distinct possibility in the minds of many in the ethnic minority communities that by asking people to prove presence in this country to determine whether they are qualified for free treatment, those with black or brown skins, with foreign-sounding names, may be asked to provide proof of entitlement by providing passports? Does the Minister understand that this is an issue that is causing considerable anxiety among the ethnic communities?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am aware of the anxiety that has been expressed and I am certain that it is misplaced. We have consulted the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations which represent ethnic minorities to ensure that we have the simplest and the most non-discriminatory form of questioning that we can devise. We have made it
    258
    clear that any member of the ethnic minority who is living in the United Kingdom is as entitled to free use of the National Health Service as anyone else.
    The present rules give rise to considerable difficulties, as recent articles in the press have demonstrated. All the existing tests and questioning have taken place under the existing rules. Those who criticise the proposals that the Government are putting forward must recognise that the present rules have in the past caused a good deal of distress and have involved a certain amount of inquiry, including inquiries of the Home Office immigration department. We want to have a simple test that will apply to everybody, one which every health authority will be able to operate simply.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with racialism? If it had, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends would not be a party to it. Does he agree that it is a long overdue measure and is merely a balancing-out operation? British people have to pay when they go abroad and it is surely only right to expect that when people from overseas come to the United Kingdom they should pay for treatment that they receive from the National Health Service.
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have engaged in one-sided largess for too long. No other country in the Western world gives free treatment to visitors from overseas. No other country has sought to follow our example. It is time to put the balance right.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman please stop pandering to the bigotry of his right hon. and hon. Friends and admit that the scheme is unworkable? He has already had to delay its implementation because he knows that everyone who is not 100 per cent. white or who does not have an Anglo-Saxon accent will be put through a series of questions by an admissions clerk to which they would not be subjected in any other circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman lacks evidence, he should read the cases that have already been referred to him concerning St. Stephen's hospital.
    Mr. Jenkin: The majority of patients who seek treatment as out-patients or in-patients at hospitals will have been referred to them by their general practitioners. I expect that in the majority of cases the general practitioner's letter will mean that the prospective patient will be asked no more than the first basic and simple questions —namely, name and address and how long the individual has been in the United Kingdom. Nothing more than that will be required. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is doing no good to the case that she tries to make by exaggerating to an extreme degree. We are still consulting and when we are ready with proposals we shall come forward and announce them to the House.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me this week that in future we shall find ourselves in the bizarre situation whereby overseas students coming here for medical or dental treatment training will not in the first three years of their training —for which they will pay more than any other student —be entitled to any form of treatment? Why does not he admit that he is hoping to look good when he is talking about what he has done in the National Health Service at the next Tory Party conference?
    Mr. Jenkin: There has for a long time been public demand that foreigners coming from overseas should pay

    259
    for health care in the same way that British people pay for health care when in other countries. We want to ensure that we have a system that is simple to operate, that is clear to understand and that brings in the revenue that we want to have.

    Health Education
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of health education as undertaken by local authorities, the Government and the Health Education Council.
    Sir George Young: With a view to increasing effectiveness, we have reviewed the work of the Health Education Council, sustained its funding, and given a strong push to health education in our guidance to health authorities "Care in Action".
    Mr. Dormand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the splendid work being done by the Health Education Council and local authorities, health education is still making insufficient impact on the public? Will he confirm that health education has an important role to play, not least in long-term savings to the National Health Service? Will the Government give much more moral and financial support to the splendid work that is being done by these bodies?
    Sir George Young: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member. For that reason, we have increased the funding to the Health Education Council to £6·5 million this year compared with £5·1 million last year. We have given guidance to local authorities and Health Service authorities to the effect that they should have a higher profile on health education. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is sometimes a difficult message to convey and calls for skills in the medical profession and amongst others in the Health Service that are different from traditional curative medicine.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister's Department examine the possibilities which are wide open because of video and television and co-ordinate the work of the Health Education Council and the television authorities in the use of video in schools to instruct youngsters in health care?
    Sir George Young: We shall pursue that matter. I believe that it is right to say that the television authorities already play a significant role in health education in their programmes for schools and in their general programmes.

    Hospital Waiting List (Macclesfield)
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current hospital waiting list for operations in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency.
    Dr. Vaughan: On 31 March 1981 there were 2,420 patients awaiting operations.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a large number of people awaiting operations in the Macclesfield area? Is he aware that Macclesfield is a growing area and that grave concern is felt by the members of the district health council, the medical profession locally and the people of my constituency that the second phase of the district general hospital is now likely to be postponed? Is he aware that completion is vital if the waiting lists in Macclesfield are not to grow even bigger?
    Dr. Vaughan: I understand that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter of waiting lists again as the position at Macclesfield is not at all satisfactory. While the national waiting list figures have gone down by 111,000 since we took office, at Macclesfield those figures have stayed roughly the same. It is important that the district general hospital should be opened as soon as possible. The first phase is expected to be completed in 1983.

    Homes for the Elderly
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to introduce his consultative proposals on the registration and inspection of private and voluntary homes for the elderly.
    Sir George Young: We hope to issue them before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that legislation was foreshadowed as long ago as December 1979 and that in November last year the proposals were said by the Minister to be under consideration? Meanwhile, many vulnerable old people are suffering in rogue private homes. When can we expect some action to strengthen the position of those clients and residents in old people's homes?
    Sir George Young: As I said we shall issue the consultation document before the Summer Recess. As a result of the consultation process, the need for legislation should become clearer. One must strike a balance between protecting vulnerable people, which every hon. Member would like to do, and too legalistic and rigid a system which would deter people from providing such services and which registration authorities might be unable to operate.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: When my hon. Friend is considering inspection and registration, will he take into account the criteria that are to be laid down regarding the standards that are to be maintained in those homes for the elderly? There is a great variation between the standards in different parts of the country. We should like to understand precisely what the Government have in mind in that regard.
    Sir George Young: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is one of the matters that will be clarified during consultation.

    Ambulancemen (Pay Offer)
    Mr. Soleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 11 May, Official Report, column 193, what assessment he has made of the effect on National Health Service services of an increase in ambulancemen's pay of more than 6 per cent.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Pay increases above the 6 per cent. cash limit would involve reducing services to patients —how much would depend on the knock-on effect on other settlements in the NHS.
    Mr. Soley: As we seek to keep people out of hospital and as a good ambulance service is necessary for that, especially for the elderly and the infirm, why could not a better pay structure lead to an improved service? Is not the present offer an insult to the ambulancemen in view of today's offer to the chairman of British Leyland?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, since the Government came to office, ambulancemen

    261
    have already had pay increases of 54 per cent. I am giving the figures for qualified ambulancemen. If this offer is included, their average earnings will be 66 per cent. higher than when we came into office. The existing offer is 7¾per cent. on basic rates spread over 15 months. The average earnings of leading ambulancemen is £184 a week in London and £163 a week outside London. I believe that the offer is fair. I hope that the ambulancemen will think twice before raking industrial action which is bound to hit patients who require treatment in hospital, particularly the elderly.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly deplorable if the ambulancemen were to withdraw their labour and thus take it out on the sick?
    Mr. Jenkin: I deplore the decision to take industrial action and to seek more money for a group of people who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as underpaid. The management side of the Whitley council offered to discuss the whole range of terms and conditions, including the possibility of a salaried service for ambulancemen, putting them in this respect more on a par with firemen. When one considers that, the decision to walk out and to take industrial action is disgraceful.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1 Mr. Needhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present when Her Majesty the Queen welcomed King Khalid of Saudi Arabia. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, and this evening I shall attend a State banquet given by the Queen in honour of King Khalid.
    Mr. Needham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, if not most, building societies insist that house insurances are channelled through them? Is she further aware that those insurance rates are often 50 per cent. higher than rates in the open market and that such societies take commission premiums of 35 per cent? Does not she think that that is an absolute scandal that should be dealt with?
    The Prime Minister: I was aware that the point raised by my hon. Friend had been a problem. I had thought that the arrangements made by the Director General of Fair Trading in 1978 had dealt with it. Clearly they have not. Therefore, the Director General of Fair Trading is now considering whether further action needs to be taken.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to express what I am sure must be the feelings of the House about the serious implications of the Israeli raid on Iraq? Does not she think that, apart from anything else, that makes even more urgent the necessity to take action on the non-proliferation treaty? Will she tell the House and the country what steps she and the Government have taken and are taking in the light of that latest, terrible, event so that something is done about it?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have already made plain their view that that armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified. It represents a grave
    262
    breach of international law. Had there been such an attack on Israel, I would have similarly condemned it. Such an attack as we have seen will add to the increasing tension in the area. With regard to the non-proliferation agreement, Iraq was a signatory to that agreement. The installation had been inspected as recently as January.
    Mr. Foot: What steps have the Government already taken to try properly to implement the non-proliferation treaty? Can she tell us how many countries now have the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, how many are open to inspection by the international authority and whether, in the light of this event, she and her Government will take fresh, urgent steps to try to ensure that that treaty operates properly?
    The Prime Minister: The Government firmly support the non-proliferation treaty and wish that more countries would become signatories. It so happens that Iraq was such a signatory. We do not believe that she had the capacity to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons. In any event, that installation had recently been inspected by the international agency.
    Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that Iraq had signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not the unprovoked attack absolutely intolerable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when Mr. Begin's international gangsterism should be stopped, before his actions threaten peace not only in the Middle East but in the world?
    The Prime Minister: We have, indeed, condemned the attack, which is a grave breach of international law. Any such act must be condemned wheresoever it occurs and by whomsoever it is carried out.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the incident not a lesson that Western democracies should be less cavalier in exporting nuclear technology? For example, are the Prime Minister and the Government concerned about the report that South Africa is asking the United States for supplies of enriched uranium? Is there not urgent need to press for greater inspection and control through the International Atomic Energy Authority?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. A tragedy of this case was that Iraq was a signatory to the agreement and had been inspected, but neither of those facts protected her. It was an unprovoked attack, which we must condemn. Just because a country is trying to manufacture energy from nuclear sources, it must not be believed that she is doing something totally wrong.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support in the country and on the Government Benches for the Government's policy on Civil Service pay? As they cannot increase the offer beyond 7 per cent., is not continued industrial action futile? Will she take the opportunity to praise the majority of civil servants who continue to carry on with their duties?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly take advantage of my hon. Friend's offer and praise the vast majority of civil servants who have carried on with their duties in the best traditions of the service. The Government believe that

    263
    under present circumstances the 7 per cent. pay offer is fair and reasonable. As a number of civil servants are concerned about future pay arrangements, the Government have agreed to negotiate next year before a cash limit is fixed, and are also anxious to have in operation as soon as possible a totally independent inquiry about future Civil Service pay arrangements.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Steel—sorry, Mr. David Owen.
    Dr. Owen: I am glad to have such official endorsement for the alliance.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, including the nuclear weapons States, pledged themselves to curb the growth of nuclear arms, and that the other signatories are expecting the nuclear weapons States to demonstrate their resolve? Will she reassess her animosity to a comprehensive test ban and take a much more positive role in negotiations with the Soviet Union and the United States to ensure that the comprehensive test ban treaty, which was very nearly successful in 1978, is now endorsed?
    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom adheres firmly to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the comprehensive test ban treaty was a long way from being signed, as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, because of the tremendous number of places that the Soviet Union was insisting on to monitor the treaty.
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study the achievements of our exporting industries? Does she accept that those achievements are partly attributable to our willingness to promote the greatest possible freedom in international trade? Does she further accept that protection is not only always damaging to the consumer but, because it reduces the efficiency of British industry, usually also destroys jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I totally agree that an exporting country such as ours needs freedom in international trade. Where we do not find it, we should attempt to open it up. I saw a Japanese representative this morning, and was the first to tell him that we should like as free access to the Japanese market as Japan has to our market. Our export record is excellent. Japan exports only 12 per cent. of her gross national product, France 24 per cent. and West Germany 28 per cent. For Britain the figure is 33 per cent.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Reverting to the sad state of the Middle East, would not Iraq have had a nuclear weapon potential that it would have used against Israel?
    Mr. Faulds: Israel has, and she has not signed the treaty.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be allowed to put his question.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister not feel a certain sense of relief that the Iraqi regime will not have a nuclear weapon potential for some further time to come?
    The Prime Minister: Had there been an attack on Israel of the kind that there has just been on Iraq, I should totally and utterly have condemned it. I, therefore, totally and utterly condemn the attack on Iraq.
    Sir Hugh Fraser: Although she condemns the use of force, does my right hon. Friend recall that over the past year many hon. Members have drawn attention to the danger and threat to peace of the previous French Government's export to Iraq of enhanced uranium, which has now come about? Although not condoning the use of force, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to prevent, as Anthony Eden did, the sale of offensive weapons to an area that is already vastly over-supplied with such weapons?
    The Prime Minister: I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the use of force, which will only add to the tensions in an area that is already unstable. The uranium supplied to Iraq was a high grade of enriched uranium necessary for the research reactor constructed. I agree that we should be very careful over the countries to which we supply such uranium.
    Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Newens: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports that raw material prices are rising rapidly, thus jeopardising the possibility of achieving her objectives on inflation? In view of escalating unemployment and all the other economic problems, what does she see as the successes of her economic policies, and how have they benefited people other than the wealthy minority?
    The Prime Minister: I note that raw material prices have risen. Anything invoiced in dollars is bound to rise. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a great supporter of a high pound-dollar exchange rate. What a pity he did not appreciate it while we had it and support the lower raw material prices that it brought for the country.
    With regard to economic policies, it makes it even more important that this country should be competitive both to get orders over here in competition with goods from overseas and orders overseas in competition with other countries which are themselves highly efficient and competitive.
    Mr. Tapsell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, at present, it is interest rate factors which are primarily influencing the world's currency markets, rather than fundamental economic considerations, so that there is an exceptional opportunity now for constructive international co-operation by Governments in the economic sphere, if they are prepared to seize it?
    The Prime Minister: High dollar interest rates have undoubtedly contributed to the deterioration in value of all
    266
    European currencies against the dollar, but the relationship has by no means been a simple one. As we know, there was a time when our pound rode very high on international markets, although there was a very substantial gap between the United States' interest rates and ours. Therefore, although I agree in general that high dollar interest rates are having an effect upon European currencies, the relationship is not a straightforward or simple one.

Members' Speeches (Typescript Copies)
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of which I have given you notice. Hon. Members recently received notice to the effect that as from next Monday they would be entitled, upon request, to receive during the course of a sitting a clean copy of the corrected Hansard report of what they had said during that sitting.
I understand that the utilisation by Members of the record of their contributions to the debate is a matter within the scope of the Chair. I therefore wish to raise with you the question of the use in debate by hon. Members of the reports of their speeches thus obtained.
It has, I think, been a convention of our debates that we do not quote documentary evidence to one another as to what has been said previously in the course of the same debate. It appears from the wording of the notice which hon. Members have received that that possibility would be open. I wonder whether, having given consideration to this, Mr. Speaker, you would wish to make a ruling upon that aspect of the new arrangements.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the notice that he gave me of this point of order. It enables me to tell the House that when the Services Committee agreed and recommended that hon. Members could be supplied by the Official Report with corrected typescripts of their speeches in the Chamber, for their personal use, there was no intention to go back upon our former custom. There was no conferring upon hon. Members of the right to quote in debate from the typescripts as evidence of what they had said earlier. Hon. Members will still follow the usual form of debate that we have followed through past years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is clear on that point.
Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Since you half invite me, perhaps I may say that I fear that the temptation may at times be too strong to be resisted.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's point of order and your explanation, Mr. Speaker. If no hon. Members are allowed to use or to quote from the typescripts, what is the point of the extra cost, when hon. Members receive Hansard the following day? Why should we waste taxpayers' money in making available something for which hon. Members have to wait only 10 or 12 hours? You may smile, Mr. Speaker, but I am serious. It is a complete waste of money. I therefore hope that you, as the custodian of the practices of the House, will say that this waste of money should not take place and that we as Members of Parliament do not want it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be that the hon. Gentleman speaks for the House, but the Services Committee felt that there was a general desire on the part of the House—
Mrs. Renée Short: Nobody asked us.
Mr. Speaker: —and that hon. Members wanted a correct report in order to use it not in this Chamber but outside it—something that is equally near to the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the ruling on this matter, there was also a reference to interventions in hon. Members' contributions. One is not able to comment on interventions made in a contribution. It seems very strange to publish outside the House a report of a contribution that makes no reference to interventions, taken as a record of what people are saying here.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the exchanges this afternoon, I shall ask the Services Committee to look at this matter again.

Highways (Small Business Signs)
Mr. Gerry Neale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the posting of standard road directional signs to small business premises without the necessity to obtain planning permission or approval from the Department of Transport.
I apologise at the outset for the fact that it is necessary, in my view, to bring forward a Bill on this subject. One would have hoped that legislation would not be necessary. However, a relative purge is now taking place in the West Country against the posting of signs by small businesses and I feel that some protection must be given to them in this respect.
The purpose of the Bill would be to require county councils, in conjunction with district planning authorities, to publish within three months their approved standards of size, colouring and lettering for road direction signs to businesses in rural areas and to exempt the posting of two such approved signs in respect of any one business on land adjoining but not being part of the highway, without the need to obtain consent from the local planning authority or the Department of Transport.
The Bill would also provide for consultation with the environmental and conservation groups on the design, colouring and shape of the directional signs. Finally, on this aspect, the Bill lays down that such approved signs should have a surface area not less than 1·5 sq. ft. and not more than 3 sq. ft. and that they bear an arrow or some directional indication for the purpose of their business. There is a further point, to which I shall return in due course.
It may help the House if I outline briefly the legal position which prevails at present. In respect of verges to any road, whether relating to motorways, trunk roads or rural byroads, if a small business, or indeed any person, seeks to install a directional sign the local highway authority has power to prosecute for illegal posting of the sign. It has the power to remove the sign at the cost of the person posting it, and the person concerned is responsible for any damage or injury that results from anybody having a collision with that sign.
The only people who are able to insert or install a sign on the verge of a road are the Secretary of State for Transport or any other Secretary of State. As a matter of waiver under the law there is no planning permission required, provided that those signs are for purely traffic directional purposes.
In the case of land adjoining a trunk road, the owner's consent is required to post such a sign. Planning consent is required under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1969. The consent of the Department of Transport is also required for the construction of such a sign on a trunk road. On all other roads or byroads it is clearly a question of obtaining the necessary planning consent. The major part of my Bill would be devoted to signs posted off the highway on adjoining land.
Despite an admirable campaign by the Cornwall branch of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses to obtain some standardisation and some approval from the local authorities concerned, all efforts to obtain a solution have so far failed. I asked the Cornwall branch for some examples of the sort of thing that was taking place. I was given a large dossier of small businesses in the West Country which are having the
270
greatest difficulty in obtaining consent. I have the dossier in my hand and hon. Members can see how large it is. In going through the examples I have been appalled at the repeated allegations from business people and from those representing them, and even from district councillors, that the county council highways management is arrogant, unco-operative and completely insensitive to small businesses. I have reason to think that this is typical of a number of areas in Britain.
The unemployment figures in Cornwall were among the worst in the country. The fact that it now has one of the best employment records is due to the activity of small businesses, as well as to the tourist and the allied catering and recreational facilities. But people must be enabled to find these businesses if they are to remain in existence. Small businesses in Cornwall—I have similar examples relating to Devon and the Lake District—find that signs which they have displayed for many years are challenged by the local authorities. The small businesses are asked to make an application in respect of the signs, and when they do so the application is immediately refused.
In one case a small business in Cornwall had displayed its sign for 10 years. The owner was challenged about the sign and asked to apply for consent. The application was promptly refused. He was questioned on whether there had been any complaints about the sign from the official authorities and the police, and his answer was "No". In another case, where a sign had been displayed for two and a half years, a similar challenge was made. Where businesses have been forced to take down signs, the effect on them has been profound.
The local authority in Cornwall is insisting that, unless the business concerned has an entry through its gate of well over 50,000 people, it should not be entitled to display a sign, whether or not consent is obtained for it. It is difficult to imagine how, when a business starts, it can aspire to having 50,000 people through the gate if it is unable to tell people where it is located.
The examples that I have given show that the position is far from adequate. Indeed, had I had more time, I could have given many other examples. If a sign is challenged successfully by the local authority, the inevitable result is that the small business man concerned draws attention to signs of other small businesses as an example of what he should be able to do. Unfortunately, the local authority then tends to cause other small businesses to remove their signs.
I should like to refer also to businesses that exist on or adjoining trunk roads. As I said earlier, in such instances the consent of the Department of Transport is required. Businesses close to motorway intersections should have the right to apply to the Department of Transport to pay for a direction sign or an appropriate symbol to be included on the direction sign constructed for or on behalf of the Department of Transport on the verges of highways. The potential of businesses that exist close to motorway intersections and trunk road junctions is considerable and is not exploited as much as it could be. I am aware that the Ministers in the Department have made considerable moves in this direction, which I welcome, but there is a mood within the small business community which would respond to greater opportunity and to the suggestion that it should pay for it.
In areas such as the West Country, where there are bypasses, businesses that are off the bypasses could also advertise themselves very successfully. I suspect that the

271
question of signs and consents for them arises from the very type of law, regulation and practice on which civil servants and council officials breed and thrive. Unfortunately, the more they breed and thrive, the more small businesses wither and die, because they cannot in many instances advertise their whereabouts.
There is, I believe, a great need for a statutory provision under which signs can be approved in the way that I outlined in the beginning of my speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerry Neale.

HIGHWAYS (SMALL BUSINESS SIGNS)
Mr. Gerry Nealeaccordingly presented a Bill to permit the posting of standard road directional signs to certain small business premises without the necessity to obtain planning permission or approval from the Department of Transport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Employment and Training [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
3.38 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964 it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—
(a) in paying pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the former chairmen of industrial training boards wound up by orders made under section 9(1)(b) of that Act; and
(b) in making payments to the trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund for the purpose of meeting the whole or part of any shortfall in the assets of the Fund referable to the pensions, superannuation allowances and gratuities payable in respect of the former officers and servants of industrial training boards which are wound up under that section.
The money resolution is required in order to authorise amendment No. 14, which will be moved later. I think it will be convenient to the House if we discuss the substance of the matter when we discuss amendment No. 14.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Employment and Training Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1

  ENTERPRISE ZONES
  '(1) No levy in respect of any employee shall accrue due under a levy order made under section 4 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 over any period or part of a period during which that employee's employment is carried on at or from an establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone under Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and any levy paid to an industrial training board by a person in respect of a period or part of a period over which by virtue of this subsection it does not accrue due shall be repayable by the board to that person.

  (2) No requirement shall be imposed on any employer under section 6 of that Act (power to obtain information from employers) in respect of any employee in respect of whom he is exempt from levy by virtue of subsection (1) above or in respect of any such establishment as is mentioned in that subsection.

  (3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall not apply in relation to such employees or such establishments as he may specify in the order or shall apply to them with such modifications as he may so specify; but no such order shall be made unless the Secretary of State has first consulted the Manpower Services Commission or the Commission has submitted proposals to him for an order under this subsection.

  (4) An order made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Prior.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I ask the House, with the new clause, to restore to the Bill a provision for employers with establishments inside enterprise zones to be relieved of the industrial training board levy and of requirements from industrial training boards for information in relation to those establishments. The provision was part of the Bill when the House gave it a Second Reading, but it was voted out in Standing Committee. We propose now to take a reserve power to restrict the provision in order to meet concerns expressed in Standing Committee, should they materialise.
  I shall not speak at length to justify the concept of enterprise zones. That concept was debated fully last year when the House approved the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. It also had a fair run in Committee. The idea of enterprise zones is to stimulate economic activity in a number of small zones where economic life has decayed, by relieving companies in a variety of ways from financial and administrative burdens. Relieving companies from the industrial training board levy and the form filling involved is a small but important part of the package of aids and incentives. In itself it may not make or break the enterprise zone experiment, but since the venture is experimental we think it right to give it the maximum chance of success by restoring this provision.
  I have read the speech made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr.

  273
  Taylor). He takes a pretty dim view of both training boards and enterprise zones. He may like to reflect on the fact that if enterprise zones succeed, and if one of the reasons for their success is that form filling has been reduced, he might he able to make a stronger case against the statutory training boards now in existence.
  In Committee my hon. Friend and others expressed hostility to the concept of enterprise zones, but the main point of concern was the possibility that the provision could be abused by companies that wanted to escape the levy without bringing substantial economic benefit to those zones. It was on that point that the clause foundered. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee saw dangers in fly-by-night companies setting up "brassplate" establishments in enterprise zones to avoid the levy. It was said that the provision was a poacher's charter.
  Those possibilities may materialise, but they may not materialise to any great extent if companies find that the benefit that this provision confers does not outweigh the costs of moving. We certainly have no evidence to suggest that they will materialise, but we think it right to respond to the concerns expressed in Committee. One way of doing so might have been to modify the provision to confine the benefits to companies with employees working exclusively inside the zones.
  We found it unsatisfactory to do that. It would have meant taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would have required companies to give information about their establishments in enterprise zones to an extent that would have destroyed much of the purpose of the provision. It would have been complicated for companies to comply with and for industrial training boards to administer. It would have excluded from the benefits of the provision some activities that we want to encourage.
  We think it better to take a reserve power to restrict the provision only if, and to the extent that, a problem emerges. The power that we propose is capable of general or precise application. It would enable us, if necessary, to remove the benefits conferred by the provision from some types of business or industries, should we find that they are tending to set up "brass plate" establishments in enterprise zones. It would enable us to confine relief to only some of the people working from establishments, or in other ways. In short, it would allow us to apply the remedy to the specific ailment that was identified. It would not, I emphasise, allow us to extend the provision in any way.
  That seems to be a sensible way of tackling the potential problems of the provision, given that no problem may emerge, or given that it is only a limited problem. It seems consistent with the experimental nature of the concept of enterprise zones.
  In addition to taking a power to restrict the provision, we are proposing another smaller change to the provision as first introduced. We propose to give the benefit of relief from the levy and from form filling to establishments that are mainly but not wholly inside enterprise zones. I would not pretend that this is an important step, since we are not aware of any establishments that are mainly but not wholly inside zones. In the main the boundaries of zones have been drawn so as to include premises completely or not at all, but a company might develop an establishment mainly in a zone, though with outlying premises outside. In those circumstances it would not be sensible to deny the company the benefits of this provision.
  274
  The new clause seeks to meet the most valid of the objections that Opposition Members raised in Committee. We think that we have relieved some of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West, but it is impossible to relieve all his anxiety. Therefore, we hope that the House will give a fair wind to the new clause.
  Mr. Barry Jones: On Second Reading in February right hon. and hon. Members—at least on the Opposition Benches—gave the then clause 4 a tardy reception. I recollect the powerful attack made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on the provision. He rode all over the arguments for exempting firms from the levy in enterprise zones.
  In Committee the hon. Member for Croydon. North-West (Mr. Taylor) brought powerful and well-informed arguments to bear against the clause. As he so bluntly and brutally said, clause 4 is impractical and has not been thought through. I should like to remind the Secretary of State of the Minister's speech in Committee on 9 April, on the original clause 4. Essentially, he first said that perhaps the wording was insufficiently stringent. Secondly, he implied that the clause was open to exploitation by firms that would locate themselves in enterprise zones solely to obtain exemption from training obligations. Thirdly, he was uncertain about the situation if buildings in an enterprise zone extended literally across the zone's boundaries.
  It was odd to hear the Government propose with such uncertainty and imprecision a clause that has major consequences for industrial training. I noted the Secretary of State's flattery of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject of the "poachers' charter", which had been raised in Committee. It would seem that he was gently ravishing his clause. In effect, he sought to establish his alibi in case things went wrong, as they might if he presses on in this direction. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to rescue the situation and to propose a new clause.
  When the Minister lost his clause in Committee we thought that the Government would return on Report with a watertight and comprehensible —if objectionable —set of proposals, but that is not the case. There is more, not less, confusion. For example, we are perplexed at the ambiguous phrases in lines 3 and 4 of new clause 1(1):
  "at or from an establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone".
  The wording appears to invite widespread and inevitable attempts to circumvent the right hon. Gentleman's professed good intentions. We strongly oppose the Government's proposal to widen the exemption to cover those firms that are situated mainly in enterprise zones. We think that that might result in firms that have three of their five establishments outside a zone being exempted from the training levy. That would result in reduced training opportunities for all employees so affected. Firms in enterprise zones will have every incentive to poach skilled labour from firms nearby and there will be unfair competition for those employers whose premises are outside, near to, or adjacent to an enterprise zone.
  4 pm
  The worrying thing is that the scope of the exemption proposed can be very wide indeed. It can apply where employment is

  275
  "carried on at or from an establishment".
  We can imagine, even if the Government cannot, some famous construction companies rubbing their hands with glee at the clause. We can imagine nation-wide haulage contractors doing the same. Perhaps we shall see some famous nameplates taken down and re-erected in enterprise zones. The options are there and the scope for manoeuvre is wide.
  Those are some of the reasons why we should look with great caution at what is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There are 11 enterprise zones in Wales, Scotland and England, but the House should not forget that the 11 zones range from 200 to 1,000-acre sites. It is possible that the Government will yet regret the nature of the clause, because the provisions as promulgated are more far-reaching than they appear to be at first sight.
  The clause precludes firms in enterprise zones from paying levy on furnishing information, but it does not say that the industrial training boards are free from servicing them. We want the right hon. Gentleman to clarify that. If industrial training boards are to service firms in enterprise zones, is that fair to other employers when the Government are planning to return industrial training boards' operating costs to the industries?
  In any event, small firms are excluded from the levy, so the introduction of the clause supports what both the TUC and the Association of Independent Businessmen have said about enterprise zones, namely, that they might be havens for property speculators and hypermarkets and could damage existing local small businesses.
  The Secretary of State described an order-making power. He implied that it was an initiative of significance —a cut in the scope of the original clause. It has been proffered to us as a concession, though willingly proffered and courteously proposed, but it poses as many questions as the right hon. Gentleman tried to answer in his opening remarks.
  Subsection (3) contains the reserve powers. On reflection, it seems to us that it is less of a concession than the right hon. Gentleman makes out. At first sight, his reference to the Manpower Services Commission appears to herald that quango's rehabilitation, on the basis that in clause 1 the commission sees its power and authority diminished by what might be the self-aggrandisement of the right hon. Gentleman in his accretion of extra powers on industrial training orders.
  Subsection (3) makes only a hypothetical exclusion. The Secretary of State and the commission are here only contemplating which firm, if any, shall be denied the juicy plum of exclusion from the need to pay levy and provide information to a training board. The Secretary of State would have greater credit if he were to say that there would be a debate each time it was proposed that a specific company in an enterprise zone should not pay the levy.
  The new clause is a fundamental breach of a basic principle for employers and employees, namely, that training should be provided and should be received. To legislate to exempt firms from their obligations to industrial training in the latter part of the twentieth century, in the midst of a serious economic depression, is irresponsible government. It is unfair to firms and employers in areas adjoining enterprise zones. They will have to undertake training and pay the levy, but their competitors in the enterprise zone will not.
  276
  The poaching of trained labour will be a certainty. There is no avoiding that if the Minister proceeds with the clause. On that basis, what he proposes is unjust. It is also inequitable, because the Government are effectively setting up a special status of company. It is pointless to say that the new clause affects but a few areas in the United Kingdom and that our opposition is much ado about nothing.
  The CBI and the TUC each know now that the Government are not fully wedded to the concept of industrial training. The Government are making no attempt to try to propose that country-wide. That is what the new clause is signalling to British industry. Establishing the special category status will produce mischievous consequences.
  Mr. Richard Needham: I am slightly confused. If the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that enterprise zones will consist entirely of hypermarkets and property developers, how will anyone be poached to do jobs that will require little if any training?
  Mr. Jones: That is not entirely true. I was quoting the TUC and the Association of Independent Businessmen, but I was not adducing that in support of the argument that I propound. I dare say that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) was not being mischievous or trying to prevent me from concluding my remarks.
  The clause will bring forth only mischievous consequences. It is a retrograde proposal. The Government have overlooked the needs of the nation and the worker in the enterprise zone. The worker is entitled, wherever he is, to more, not less, training. Training should embody some of the principles of industrial safety and a worker in an enterprise zone should have good, comprehensive training from experts and professionals. We oppose the clause because under its provisions that will not be available. The clause should be wholeheartedly opposed. It is a miserable one and deserves to fall.
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I am surprised that the House is debating this subject once again, considering the time that was spent on it in Committee. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that Conservative Members also opposed the sentiments expressed by the Under-Secretary. I thought that this subject had been shot down in flames, never again to be seen, but it has been presented in new clothing in a second attempt to give it respectability and the hope that it will be carried on Report.
  As Labour Members study these enterprise zones more and more, they increasingly see them as gimmicks. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the concept of the enterprise zones in one of his early Budgets, we have listened to all kinds of methods and excuses to justify them as ways of trying to entice development into them.
  We all know that the enterprise zones will not provide jobs or provide solutions to unemployment. In respect of jobs we may be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The House will realise that numerous local authorities have already cottoned on to some of the disadvantages of the enterprise zones and have made representations to the various Ministries.
  There is a designated zone adjacent to the city of Manchester. There have already been numerous meetings not just with the local authority, but with the various

  277
  chambers of trade, which are now beginning to recognise some of the disadvantages in the offing. As a consequence, they have made some loud protests.
  It is fair to remind the Minister that there are inner city areas with acute problems. The strange thing is that no special help is to be afforded to inner cities, Yet Government spokesmen have said many times that their sympathies still lie with the inner city programmes and that they intend to continue supporting them. Had the Government really wanted to assist employment their help would have been concentrated in areas such as the inner cities, but instead we are deluded into thinking that if we support the enterprise zones all will be well and things will improve.
  It is worth reminding the House that many parts of the country that do not have enterprise zones are designated development areas or intermediate areas. They all deserve special Government assistance and sympathy, yet the Government do not propose any special assistance for those areas. All the evidence points to the possibility of a complete dilution of assistance to the development areas, as a result of which companies will be enticed to look to the enterprise zones with their gimmicks, such as exemption from industrial training.
  The more I think of enterprise zones, the more I become disturbed and alarmed. For example, I have already heard noises about land values suddenly increasing in these enterprise zones because of speculation that if the Government introduce these various benefits the estate agents ought to be on the gravy train to share in those benefits. That is completely contrary to the sentiments that the Government have previously expressed. However, one can understand why society's wheelers and dealers think that they must share in this preferential treatment by making deals for these developments.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: The idea that property speculators and others will cash in on these enterprise zones is in no way anathema to Conservative Members, because in 1973 they set in train the biggest racketeering and property speculation since the Second World War, and this proposal is on all fours with that.
  Mr. Eastham: I do not argue with my hon. Friend's sentiments, with which I am in complete sympathy. He knows of numerous examples, and I am sure that many hon. Members could tap their experience to cite others. Nevertheless, it is proper at this stage for Labour Members to point out that things are not right. For those reasons, we are justified in opposing this continued preferential treatment to the detriment of other areas which must abide by the rules rind make a normal contribution to industrial training.
  4.15 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) mentioned several possibilities, such as the establishment of bogus headquarters addresses in these enterprise zones. Will the Minister give a guarantee that that will not take place? It would be extremely difficult to justify the establishment of companies that take the view that because their address is in the enterprise zone they should be exempt from facing their fair responsibilities in competition with other industrialists who are going through a difficult time.
  We believe that the concept of the enterprise zone is a complete farce, especially at a time when ordinary
  278
  companies are wrestling with Britain's devastated economy and trying to keep their end up. They are trying to produce future technologists and technicians and are facing their training obligations. Such companies will be confronted by some of the cheats in industry who will not pay a penny piece and who later will probably poach skilled people from adjacent areas.
  I believe that that is a reasonable option which some companies will seriously consider. Not one clause in the Bill will help training. I defy any Conservative Member to put his hand on his heart, stand before the House and say that the Bill has been presented solely in the interests of improving training. Labour Members regard it as a poachers' charter, and the Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: When a similar clause to this was removed from the Bill, I thought that good sense had prevailed. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State made the astonishing admission that there were many loopholes in the clause as drafted and conceded the Opposition's point that there would be ways in which companies could get around the intention of the Bill.
  I am astonished that the Government should now seek to widen the opportunities to find loopholes. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), I am not surprised that they are trying to reintroduce the clause. I am just astonished that, having conceded in Committee that it did not constitute a watertight arrangement, they are now introducing an even more leaky clause.
  The Under-Secretary of State smiles, but there were times in Committee when I thought that he had stepped out of a P. G. Wodehouse story. The hon. Gentleman acted like Bertie Wooster, but, unlike Bertie Wooster, he needed not one Jeeves but two to help him at times with his explanation of the Government's intentions on industrial training.
  The main weakness is the abuses that are likely to take place when companies realise the advantage that is given when they are required only to be "mainly" sited within an enterprise zone. We have 11 Liechtensteins throughout the country. I thought in Committee that it might be enough to permit companies to have a name plate or a post box saying that its headquarters were located within an enterprise zone. I realise now that there are probably ample opportunities for enterprising business men to set up offices on a kind of "rent-a-room" headquarters basis. Companies will sense the opportunities available to them by siting their head offices within an enterprise zone in order to claim exemption from the levy for employees and the supplying of necessary information on their employment activities to the industrial training boards.
  Mr. John Townend: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about abuses, does he agree that the greater the extent to which the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to wind up training boards and the fewer the number of training boards, the fewer the opportunities that will arise for the problems to which he refers?
  Mr. Craigen: I know the mind of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). I worked closely with him on the Employment Select Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to abolish the industrial training boards altogether.
  Mr. Townend: Not quite. Nearly.
  Mr. Craigen: That is remarkable concession. The Government are intent on moving from a statutory to a voluntary arrangement within the industrial training system. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be more encouraging not to exclude companies that lie within enterprise zones. If the Government feel as deeply in favour of voluntarism for industrial training boards as hon. Members are led to believe, I should have thought that more encouragement would be provided to employers in particular industries if the Government stated that there were no special privileges for a company that happened to be located within an enterprise zone. The Government have adopted the approach that companies within an enterprise zone will be exempted from paying rates. Why should an extra privilege be provided in respect of their reponsibilities towards the training of their labour, thus enabling them to escape those responsibilities in this sphere of manpower?
  The Secretary of State suggested that the drafting of the new clause might assuage the misgivings of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman is a hard man to please on industrial training matters. He was rightly concerned about the prospect of a large company within an enterprise zone, employing hundreds of people, escaping its responsibilities for training, while a small company just outside the enterprise zone would have to shoulder its responsibilities.
  I hope that more Government Back Benchers will think carefully about the implications of the new clause and realise what is involved, not only in respect of the undesirable practice, but in respect of the unfair competition that will benefit companies that happen to be sited within an enterprise zone. I hope that enough Government Back Benchers will think deeply enough to reverse the Government's intention.
  Mr. Hooley: I am not surprised that the Government have called in their heavyweight Secretary of State to present the new clause to the House. His reputation as a flabby wet within the Cabinet is possibly becoming a little embarrassing. He perhaps feels that he has to demonstrate that he is as desiccated as some of his colleagues and needs to flex his muscles to show that he is as ideologically committed to free enterprise as the rest of the gang. I am not surprised that the junior Minister, who was obviously embarrassed in coping with the rebellion from his own side —he is really a very amiable chap —should have preferred to bow out of the debate on the Floor of the House and to shelter behind the prestige of his senior colleague, allowing him to do the donkey work.
  The new clause is worse than the original clause. The phrase "wholly or mainly" has been included. This implies a creeping extension of the concept of enterprise zones. The debate has been bedevilled on both sides by split minds among some of my colleagues and certainly among some Conservative Members about whether the enterprise zone is a good idea.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: The drift of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the new clause may lead to a creeping extension of enterprise zones. The whole concept of the enterprise zone is surely to see whether the idea works. Would it not be better if the whole
  280
  country were an enterprise zone, with no restrictions? Would the hon. Gentleman be opposed to such an approach?
  Mr. Hooley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and most of the Cabinet would be terrified to hear the proposition put forward by the hon. Gentleman. The rate revenue, the tax revenue and heaven knows what else would disappear if the enterprise zone concept were extended in the manner that he proposes.
  I do not believe that legislation approved in the past in respect of enterprise zones has ever introduced the principle that benefits should accrue to an establishment that was "wholly or mainly" within the zone. I may be wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can call on his advisers for some exegesis of the 1980 Act to explain how the enterprise zones were defined. I do not recall even the Secretary of State for the Environment claiming that the various benefits that a private firm could gain by being situated in an enterprise zone would apply if the establishment concerned were "wholly or mainly" within the area.
  The implications need to be examined. Let us suppose that the establishment is large and extends outside the zone. An extension might be built. Does that qualify? If another extension is added, does that qualify? How far can an establishment creep over the boundary? Does the number of people employed have to be defined? Is the square footage taken into account? Can a building go up to a height of 15 storeys and still claim the benefit? Does it depend on the definition of the ground floor area? The phrase "wholly or mainly" is the sort of sloppy wording that should not appear in a Bill of this kind. I am not aware that it has appeared hitherto in the enterprise zone concept.
  4.30 pm
  There have been split minds on both sides of the House on whether enterprise zones are a good thing. I have never hesitated in denouncing them as a cranky gimmick with no contribution to make to the economy or the creation of jobs. Bringing them into a Bill on industrial training, where they are wholly irrelevant and where the concept contributes nothing to the major argument about the nature and structure of industrial training, shows how dangerous a gimmick it is.
  The phrase "wholly or mainly" is likely to cause immense complications and arguments between firms and the Civil Service on the question of who falls within the definition.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he finds enterprise zones so objectionable when their purpose is to encourage firms to come to the area and create employment? Presumably he finds wholly praiseworthy regional policy that has exactly the same objective.
  Mr. Hooley: If the hon. Gentleman seriously wants an answer to that he should read the excellent speech that I made on the Report stage of the Finance Bill last year, when I set out in considerable detail my objections to enterprise zones. My arguments were cogent, coherent and compelling, and still are. If the hon. Gentleman wants to study enterprise zones in general and reads my speech he will be enlightened.

  281
  In addition to the sloppy phrase "wholly or mainly", the clause contains the even more dangerous and alarming phrase in line 3:
  "carried on at or from an establishment".
  Why could not the Government, if they mean this exemption to apply, honestly and straightforwardly say "in an establishment"? That is simple, straightforward and easy to understand. But no, the Government produce this vague and dangerous phrase "at or from". "At" could certainly be construed as meaning the same as "in", but "from" is a different matter.
  If a firm sets up a regional or area office in an enterprise zone, and if most of its employees are employed on activities around the area outside the enterprise zone, or far from it, does it qualify for the exemptions set out in the clause? There are many firms in this category. Reference has been made to haulage firms, whose employees go all over the country. There are construction firms that carry out contracts throughout the kingdom. Many firms employ travellers and agents to gain business for them —double glazing firms, for instance. They may send hundreds of employees around the country seeking to gain business.
  If a firm of that type sets up its regional office, area office or headquarters in an enterprise zone, can it claim exemption from the levy in respect of all its workers who are scattered about the kingdom? Let us suppose that that firm has a long-established competitor in another city, or in another place in the same city but not within the enterprise zone. Is the competitor to have to put up with the disadvantage that his rival can claim exemption in respect of training and that the staff that he has so carefully trained can be poached, borrowed, seized or stolen by the fly-by-night firm in the enterprise zone, which makes no contribution to training?
  The Minister said that subsection (3) gave the Government draconian powers to clobber ruthlessly firms that sought to exploit this situation. I am surprised that a Conservative Government should see fit to take powers like this to direct the affairs of private firms. What is more curious is that they will put themselves in an invidious position. They will have to say to a firm that transgresses subsection (1) by setting up its office in an enterprise zone when most of its employees are working throughout the kingdom, "Sorry, we did not mean this to apply to you". The firm will then say that another firm in the enterprise zone is doing the same, but that is has not been told not to do it.
  What kind of power is this, to pick and choose between private enterprise firms, telling one firm that it cannot do this, and another that it can? I am sure that there will be some snarls from the CBI, if from no one else, about subsection (3).
  The answer comes from the Government "But we shall not use it, or we shall not use it very much". That is the truth of the matter. It has been put in as a sop in reply to complaints made by both sides of the Committee about this whole gimmick. To save face the Government are insisting on the enterprise zone provision but are shoving in a saving clause to make it clear that they will not tolerate large abuse.
  Does anyone seriously believe that the Secretary of State will lay order after order in respect of individual firms that have set up in enterprise zones for the sake of avoiding training levies, to bring them to heel? Of course not. Subsection (3) is not seriously meant. It is put in as
  282
  a form of words so that the Secretary of State can tell the CBI and the trade unions that no abuse can occur because the Government have legal powers to correct it.
  The Government know full well that with all the mass of business that falls on the shoulders of the Secretary of State and the Department of Employment they will never bother about the clause. It is simply a cosmetic exercise, put in partly to reassure and partly to fudge the issue and pretend that the dangers that hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out do not exist.
  In Committee the Minister used a delightful phrase when he said:
  "I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West will agree that, if we are able to exclude them from an added burden, that will be good for them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 April 1981; c. 250.]
  He was talking about private firms. The Bill puts an extra burden of £50 million on industry. The Minister says that this silly little gimmick will save £500,000, or perhaps £1 million, or perhaps nothing. He has the gall to present to the House a Bill which deliberately shifts extra payments of £50 million on to industry. If ever there was evidence of the nonsense of the clause, that phrase is it.
  Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to follow the powerful argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I was one of those perhaps naive members of the Committee who thought that, since we had defeated the clause there, that would be the last of it. I shall be interested to hear the contribution, if any, from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) if he has the opportunity of catching your eye on this issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We are reconsidering a clause that was roundly defeated. The argument was won by Opposition Members, yet the Government are crawling back to stampede this new clause through the House by using the unthinking soldiers that they have at their disposal.
  I was not in Committee and I still am not implacably opposed to the concept of enterprise zones. Anyone who has experienced the difficulty of trying to attract jobs into inner city areas recognises that it is difficult enough to attract them to green field sites in special development areas, especially now that the amount of footloose industry is seriously reduced and the competition for it has increased so much. I am one of those who look to a whole range of experimentation in inner city areas to help us to make some impact upon the fearful problem of attracting new jobs to those areas.
  However, I am implacably opposed to the exemption of companies, large or small, in such enterprise zones from making a contribution towards training. If the enterprise zone is designed as a way of making a contribution towards reducing unemployment in inner city areas, one thing is being forgotten. Surely the Secretary of State would be the first to admit that the vast majority of the unemployed in inner city areas are unskilled.
  In that situation, any company that is moving into an enterprise zone either neglects to employ the people in the neighbourhood of that zone because they have not the relevant skills for the enterprise or it goes about trying to train those people. I hope that all companies will do the latter. Then they would find that they would need to spend the money that is necessary to initiate proper training programmes.
  Many of the companies that will move into enterprise zones will not do the training. Especially in the short term,

  283
  they will do what many other companies have done for too long —that is, poach skilled labour from where they can get it. Some of my hon. Friends have rightly damned the clause and the whole Bill as a poachers' charter. We are convinced that there is nothing in it that will enable the Secretary of State to fulfil the laudable objectives that he enunciated to the House in his November statement, which many on this side of the House are fully agreed with and wish him well in seeking to attain.
  Here the right hon. Gentleman is giving another exemption to companies irrespective of their size, of how long they have been established and of their commitment to training elsewhere. He is making an exception purely on the ground that they are operating.
  "at or from an establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone".
  Surely small companies which some people wish to exempt from the burden of the levy are already sufficiently exempt within the training stuctures. I have not heard any hon. Member make a strong case that they are not. So a small company within an enterprise zone is hardly likely to find training a burden.
  4.45 pm
  What possible reason can there be for exempting a medium-sized or large company from its commitment to training? There can be no reason. If there is a valid reason for exempting such companies from the so-called burden of training, we should discuss the responsibility not only to train for their own needs but to contribute to the national needs of training —not the burden of training. If there is sufficient reason to exempt them if they are operating within an enterprise zone, what will prevent another Secretary of State, or even this Secretary of State, from coming to the House next year and saying that the exemption in enterprise zones has proved such a good idea that the Government want to extend it to most of the country?
  I want from the Secretary of State a justification for any company in an enterprise zone having such exemption. Why should these companies be allowed to reduce their responsibility and contribution to the training commitment? Not only does the Secretary of State need to justify to the Opposition why any company should be exempt, but he needs to explain to Members on his own Back Benches why people who operate within spitting distance of an enterprise zone, or even within 20, 30 or 100 miles of one, should be so unfavourably placed. Why do people whom the Government want to attract to enterprise zones need to be given this additional incentive? Is the Secretary of State really saying that there are not sufficient incentives already?
  How much additional incentive are we talking about? My guess is that it is peanuts and not sufficient to be taken seriously into consideration by a company among the other decisions that will influence it. If that is the case, why include it in the Bill? Why cause injustice to companies that operate in surrounding areas or elsewhere?
  I remain highly sceptical of the success of enterprise zones. I, too, have the great fears, which some of my hon. Friends have expressed, about them being attractive only to property speculators and hypermarkets. I, too, am deeply concerned about the number of multinational companies that are considering shuffling their operations into enterprise zones. If that is the result at the end of the
  284
  day it will prove a completely and expensively fruitless exercise. The burden of proof remains with the Secretary of State to justify to Labour Members why any company should be exempt and to Government Members why other companies should be put at such a disadvantage.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: I am flattered and surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have found time to read my humble contribution in Committee. I am even more flattered that four of the five Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate so far have similarly referred to the few remarks that I made. In spite of that flattery I remain unconvinced by and dissatisfied with the revised clause that is before us.
  My criticism is not the same as that made by some Labour Members. It shows a naivety and lack of knowledge of business to suggest that because firms in enterprise zones may be excused the payment of industrial training levies they are likely to go on the rampage and poach trained personnel from firms outside the enterprise zones. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who said that the levy was peanuts compared with the other inducements that were available to bring firms into enterprise zones.
  I oppose the clause because it introduces an element of bureaucracy that is quite unnecessary, particularly at a time when we are trying to reduce bureaucracy. Moreover, it puts firms outside enterprise zones at a further disadvantage.
  A letter in The Times today is extremely pertinent. It comes from the secretary of the National Chamber of Trade, who writes from Enterprise House, at Henley-on-Thames, saying
  "The ironic part of the whole scheme"
  —enterprise zones—
  "is that the businesses on the outside of the zone boundaries not only lose out to completely unfair competition, but have to foot the bill for the £20 million capital allowances and £50 million rates lost by the end of the 10-year period."
  He omitted to say that in addition they would have to continue to fund the industrial training boards without the assistance of those firms that are operating from the enterprise zones.
  The fact that it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to reintroduce the clause suggests that, as a result of the Bill, he will not disband the number of boards that I hoped on Second Reading would be disbanded. If, as a result of the Bill, he does away with many of the industrial training boards, surely the clause is superfluous. If he intends to continue the industrial training boards, with all the paraphernalia of levies, grants and form filling that those of us in industry know so well, the outlook is quite unsatisfactory.
  My right hon. Friend is taking wide powers in the new clause. Subsection (3), which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) quoted, says that the Secretary of State shall not apply the order
  "in relation to such employees or such establishments as he may specify".
  That is a very wide power to grant to any Secretary of State. I am certain that while my right hon. Friend is Secretary of State he will excercise the power with discretion and common sense, but that may not always happen. The House is in danger of introducing far too much legislation which, by its nature, gives powers to Secretaries of State to take action that should not be taken

  285
  without the consent of the House. It is a dangerous tendency. We should be careful about giving Secretaries of State such wide-ranging powers.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how he will exercise those powers. The issue has already been raised of companies that set up in enterprise zones and trade outside them. My right hon. Friend dealt with the matter to a certain extent when he referred to "brass-plate" companies. What about the multiple retail outlet that has a shop inside an enterprise zone? Will it be allowed to exempt all the employees who work in that shop from paying to the distributive industrial training boards? If so, how does my right hon. Friend and his Department know how many of the employees on the company's payroll work full time in that one multiple retail outlet that is centred in the enterprise zone?
  Let us consider a building that is to be constructed in the enterprise zone. I assume that the registered office does not provide the qualification for exemption from levies. Therefore, the activity must be the exemption. If a construction company completes a contract inside an enterprise zone, presumably the employees working on that contract will be exempted from their levy. Who is to say how many people on that payroll will be working full time on that job? What about the directors? What about the contract managers? What about the site agents? What about all the employees? How will my right hon. Friend manage the scheme? In my view, it is unworkable. Therefore, I remain unconvinced by this revamped clause. I cannot support my right hon. Friend, and it is not my nature to sit on the fence.
  Mr. Prior: I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's remarks, because I thought that we had gone a long way towards convincing him that what we were doing was sensible and wise. He made great play of the bureaucracy of British institutions. The new clause is an attempt —in my view a laudable attempt —to reduce bureaucracy in certain areas in order to encourage the growth of employment. It is a pilot scheme to see what else can be done to show that enterprise will flourish as a result of reducing bureaucracy, form filling, and so on. I had hoped that my hon. Friend would come that far with us. Any Secretary of State would use the powers sparingly, and the powers are, of course, subject to the negative procedure in the House. No doubt my hon. Friend will be vigilant in seeing that the powers used by Secretaries of State are kept to the minimum. If enterprise zones are to function as we hope they will, they should have as much freedom from form filling and bureaucracy as possible.
  As we have strayed a little wide, I shall enumerate the benefits that are available to industry and commerce in an enterprise zone: exemption from general rates; exemption from development land tax; 100 per cent. capital allowances; simplified planning procedures; speedier handling of requests for Customs warehousing; exemption from IDCs; minimal requests for statistical information; and, subject to the passage of the Bill, exemption from ITB levy and information requirements.
  I am sure that many people will want to set up businesses in enterprise zones.
  Mr. Eastham: Why, then, do we not offer the same concessions to the designated inner city areas, which in major cities have all these acute problems? The right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues are saying that they
  286
  need all the support that they can get to create these inducements. Why do those areas not receive the same consideration?
  Mr. Prior: For geographical reasons we decided that there must be separate zones for the purpose, other than inner city areas. That is why, on the whole, derelict areas have been chosen in certain places, so that they do not conflict with existing businesses. The idea is to attract new business.
  5 pm
  There is bound to be a degree of selectivity in any regional policy, whether it involves development areas, special development areas or any other status, when something special is given to one area that is denied to others that are made to pay for it. Certain advantages being conferred on people inside a zone that other people just outside the zone have to pay for is nothing new. That has always been one of the factors in designating an area. This is no exception.
  Opposition Members had better make up their minds. Some of them think that the enterprise zone concept will fail. If that is so they have nothing to worry about. If only hypermarkets or property companies set up in enterprise zones the training establishment will not be affected. On the other hand, if, as some Opposition Members believe, enterprise zones turn out to be honey pots, to which many new firms will go, training is relevant, and so is new industry and new employment. The Opposition must decide which way they believe enterprise zones will work.
  Sir Albert Costain: When the Government's plan becomes successful, Opposition Members will argue that people are speculating and may make some money out of it.
  Mr. Prior: That is another contradiction.
  The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) asked whether the ITB was empowered to assist establishments in an enterprise zone. The ITB is empowered, but not required, to assist establishments in an enterprise zone. The clause applies only to establishments "wholly or mainly" in a zone. If an establishment is outside a zone the clause does not apply to it. However, workers controlled from an establishment in a zone are exempt under the clause. It will depend on the definition of the establishment whether it is held to be within a zone.
  In the case of Lord Advocate v Babcock and Willcox (Operations) Ltd., concerning the firm's construction site at Didcot power station, it was held by the House of Lords that the site at the power station was an establishment because there was exclusive occupation of the premises, because it had some degree of permanence, and because organisational and administrative functions were performed there. It was also said that not all construction sites could be regarded as establishments.
  It will be a question in each case whether a temporary headquarters or site in a zone is an establishment. Similarly, if a construction company sets up its headquarters in an enterprise zone it will have to establish whether construction sites throughout the country constitute establishments that fall outside the zone or whether they are included in the headquarters. One of the purposes of the clause, and particularly of subsection (3), is to meet that point. It gives the Secretary of State power, if he feels that it is necessary, to take action in regard to such an establishment.
  Mr. Craigen: The Secretary of State is acknowledging that he expects companies to have the double advantage of establishing their headquarters in an enterprise zone and employing people outwith the zone.
  Mr. Prior: In some cases that will be so. It is inevitable. If a haulage firm is set up in an enterprise zone drivers will travel outside that zone, but they will be assessed as if they worked from the zone, and therefore the employer will not be subject to the industrial training board levy.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: What if a haulage firm sets up inside an enterprise zone and has a depot outside the zone?
  Mr. Prior: That will depend on whether it is considered to be a major abuse and whether the depot outside the zone constitutes an establishment "mainly or wholly" within the zone. I should have thought that depots spread throughout the country would not qualify. However, that will be a matter to be decided at the time.
  I hope that few such cases will arise. That is why the original clause did not include powers such as we are including in the new clause. That seems to be sensible. We think it right to introduce the new clause so that if "brass plate" abuse of the type discussed in Committee occurred, or poachers' charters or little Liechtensteins were set up, we could deal with the matter.
  Mr. Harold Walker: The Secretary of State has created a whole new area of uncertainty for many firms, particularly in the construction industry. The Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for skilled manpower —a crucial aspect of the economy. The Secretary of State said that it would be open to any major construction company building motorways or petrochemical plants, for example, to establish an office in an enterprise zone from which it could be said that men were working and thus obtain exemption from the levy. However, such a company will not know whether the Secretary of State will slap an order on it restrospectively.
  Mr. Prior: We shall not restrospectively slap an order on a company. The right hon. Member is making a terrible meal out of the issue. We want to encourage people to set up in the enterprise zones. We want to put as few obstacles in their way as possible. However, outside interests and members of the Committee have said that the scheme could be subject to the abuse that firms could move into a zone with their headquarters and all their other activities throughout the country would be exempt from the training levy. If that happened, by statutory instrument the Secretary of State may
  "provide that this section shall not apply in relation to such employees or such establishments as he may specify in the order or shall apply to them with such modifications as he may so specify; but no such order shall be made unless the Secretary of State has first consulted the Manpower Services Commission or the Commission has submitted proposals to him for an order under this subsection."
  That makes the position clear. I have no doubt that the construction industry understands what would be considered to be a proper establishment in the enterprise zone and what would be considered to be an establishment outside the zone. I do not believe that the problems are likely to arise. The Government believe that where there is reasonable doubt the benefit of that doubt should go to the firm in the enterprise zone. We wish to encourage
  288
  firms to move into those areas of dereliction and high unemployment so that they can create new employment. That is the purpose of framing the new clause in this way.
  Mr. Hooley: The Secretary of State can get away from the business of laying orders, giving directives and so on, if he will drop the phrase "at or from" and say "in". I thought that the objective was to create employment in the enterprise zones. If he drops the nonsense about "at or from" and simply says "in" he will not need all the other apparatus.
  Mr. Prior: That is nonsense. If we use the phrase "in an enterprise zone", anyone who works outside it will be subject to the levy. There will be those who work outside the enterprise zones but whose firms are established in them. To go down the path suggested by the hon. Gentleman would make nonsense of the whole purpose of the clause, which is to try to prevent the growth of bureaucracy and give firms an advantage that they would not otherwise have. That is the whole purpose of the clause. It is wide ranging, and its definitions are also wide.
  It is true that other benefits do not apply to an establishment wholly or mainly within a zone. To avoid bureaucracy we thought it desirable not to divide the establishment for the purposes of the clause and the training levy. Previously, the clause included the words "wholly inside the zone". That would mean that being even a few square feet outside the zone would disqualify the whole establishment. That is why we have used the phrase "wholly and mainly". The concept of "establishments" does not appear in existing legislation affecting enterprise zones, because "establishments" is primarily a concept of employment law. Other Acts, for example, refer to hereditaments and not to establishments.
  I believe that the concept of the enterprise zone is something that we should support. The hon. Member of Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) recognised that in Committee, and again this afternoon. The general view is that enterprise zones will be popular and that the concessions in themselves will provide a number of opportunities that otherwise would not occur.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) was disappointed that we had tabled the new clause. He suspects that the number of training boards that will be abolished will be rather less than would otherwise have been the case. No decisions have been reached on that subject. First, it will depend entirely on the advice that I am given by the Manpower Services Commission —which has not yet submitted proposals about any sectors of industry —and after that on the Government's view, taking account of the problems associated with the transfer of operating costs from Government finance to a training board.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The right hon. Gentleman said that enterprise zones were popular. Undoubtedly they are popular in some quarters, but has the right hon. Gentleman seen the criticisms levelled at them by the Liverpool chamber of commerce, which has not shown great enthusiasm for them? Should he not take that view into consideration?
  While I am on my feet, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really suggesting that an old-established construction firm in the city of Liverpool should be encouraged to move its headquarters into an

  289
  enterprise zone so that it will not pay a levy —a levy that is vital if we are to obtain the training that is needed in the;construction industry?
  Mr. Prior: I am not saying that. I have already said, before the hon. Gentleman came in—
  Mr. Heller: I am sorry that I was late. I was at another meeting.
  Mr. Prior: This is an important meeting.
  Mr. Heffer: I am here now.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Prior: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is here now. I accept his apology. I do not believe that there is any evidence that large construction companies will deliberately move their headquarters into enterprise zones. If they were to do that to attract the advantages of enterprise zones and to exempt themselves from the industrial training board levy, the provisions in the clause would prevent that happening. The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much on that score.
  I confess that I have not read what the Liverpool chamber of commerce has said about enterprise zones. I am not surprised to hear that there is some criticism of them. I have reached the conclusion that in Britain it is almost impossible to do anything that does not at some time attract criticism from somebody. Whenever we try anything new in Britain thousands of people pour cold water on it. That has been done adequately by the Opposition this afternoon. I hope that on the basis of my remarks they will withdraw their opposition to the new clause.
  Mr. Barry Jones: No, Sir. When the Secretary of State introduced his new clause he conceded that there was a possibility of abuse—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must seek the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask the leave of the House to speak again. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman knew that the new clause could be a poachers' charter. He said that there would be complications. I suppose that the best description of his remarks is that he played both ends against the middle. The more that he tried to answer the questions posed by my hon. Friends, the more it became clear that the new clause had been ill thought out.
  The Government obviously had difficulty in framing the new clause, for the second time, in as watertight a way as they wanted. We are facing the pressures of time in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that matters depended on the definition of the establishment. He perplexed us, specifically, with his citation of the precedent and the answers that flowed from that. It is rather late in the day for him to confront us with such an answer.
  The right hon. Gentleman has failed to convince us. He has confirmed our worst anxieties and we shall vote against the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 193.

  Division No. 211]

  [5.18pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Alexander, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Arnold, Tom

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

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

  Greenway, Harry

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

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

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Grist, Ian

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Blackburn, John

  Hannam, John

  Body, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hicks, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brittan, Leon

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Hooson, Tom

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hordern, Peter

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Buck, Antony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Butcher, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  King, Rt Hon Tom

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

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Knox, David

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lamont, Norman

  Colvin, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Cope, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Corrie, John

  Latham, Michael

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Critchley, Julian

  Lee, John

  Crouch, David

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dover, Denshore

  Loveridge, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Eggar, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, M, (N'bury)

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Madel, David

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Major, John

  Farr, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Fell, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mather, Carol

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

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

  Mawby, Ray

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mellor, David

  Fry, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moate, Roger

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moore, John

  291

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Sims, Roger

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mudd, David

  Speed, Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Myles, David

  Sproat, lain

  Neale, Gerrard

  Squire, Robin

  Needham, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steen, Anthony

  Neubert, Michael

  Stevens, Martin

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stokes, John

  Osborn, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Parris, Matthew

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thompson, Donald

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Porter, Barry

  Trippier, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Viggers, Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Waddington, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wakeham, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Renton, Tim

  Wall, Patrick

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wheeler, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rost, Peter

  Wickenden, Keith

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

  Silvester, Fred

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Craigen, J. M.

  Adams, Allen

  Crowther, J. S.

  Allaun, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Donald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, A. J.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

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

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Deakins, Eric

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

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

  Dempsey, James

  Bradley, Tom

  Dewar, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dobson, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Dormand, Jack

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Dubs, Alfred

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Campbell, Ian

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eastham, Ken

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

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

  English, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Coleman, Donald

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ewing, Harry

  Cook, Robin F.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cowans, Harry

  Field, Frank

  292

  Fitch, Alan

  Morton, George

  Flannery, Martin

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Newens, Stanley

  Ford, Ben

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Forrester, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foster, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foulkes, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Parry, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Penhaligon, David

  Golding, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Graham, Ted

  Radice, Giles

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Richardson, Jo

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Robertson, George

  Haynes, Frank

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rooker, J. W.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

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

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Homewood, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hooley, Frank

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Howells, Geraint

  Silverman, Julius

  Huckfield, Les

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Snape, Peter

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Soley, Clive

  John, Brynmor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stott, Roger

  Kerr, Russell

  Strang, Gavin

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lamond, James

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Litherland, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Tilley, John

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  McElhone, Frank

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  McKelvey, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Welsh, Michael

  McTaggart, Robert

  White, Frank R.

  Magee, Bryan

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Whitlock, William

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

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

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Winnick, David

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Mikardo, Ian

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. Hugh McCartney.

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that could cause

  293
  some hon. Members to miss Divisions. The 24-hour clock on the right hand side of the annunciator seems to be working somewhat variably, and in many cases is completely missing from the screens. That means that hon. Members are not able to obtain information on how long a Division has been progressing. That could be crucial information for an hon. Member who is trying to reach the Chamber. I wonder whether you could arrange to have the matter investigated and corrected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall arrange for that matter to be seen to.

New Clause 2

  THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS' COMBINED PENSION FUND
  'The trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund may, with the consent of three quarters of the number of the industrial training boards whose officers and servants are eligible to benefit from the Fund, make such amendments of the rules of the Fund as they think fit.'.—[Mr. Peter Morrison].
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and other hon. Members will know, under the present rules of the ITB pension fund the trustees need the consent of all the ITBs to any significant change of the rules. Any board, irrespective of size and importance, can veto a change, whether to benefits provided under the scheme, to the procedures for running the fund, or to any other substantive matter covered by the rules. The new clause secures that the trustees need the consent of only three-quarters of the boards to any change in the rules.
  The trustees asked us to make that change. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the trustees met yesterday. Seven were present and four were member trustees representing staff, including all the union nominees. They were all in favour of changing the rules in the way proposed. They believe that the change will facilitate their job, particularly at a time when a number of boards may be wound up and some rearrangement of the fund may be needed to ensure viability.
  In the normal course of events I would not recommend to the House that we should legislate in this way to vary one provision of what is effectively a voluntary contract. However, this is an unusual case. The unanimity rule, which makes sense for a fund where there is one employer whose agreement to proposals from the trustees should rightly be obtained before there are major changes, is not desirable where there are 24 employers of varying sizes. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that that rule was drawn up before the boards were created.
  I would not recommend the change either if I felt that there was a risk that the trustees would seek to act in a way that diminished the rights of boards or their staff. The trustees are themselves nominees of boards and staff. We are providing that they should not be able to change the rules without a three-quarters majority of the board. We believe that those are adequate safeguards. Accordingly, I recommend the new clause.
  A possible future problem, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware relates to rule 305, which
  294
  provides for the subdivision of the fund. On the advice of their actuary, the trustees will want to set up a closed fund for the pensions of staff of boards that may have been wound up, and an open fund for the pensions of the staff of boards that are retained. For a separate fund to be set up, the trustees believe that they need the consent of all boards. It is possible that perhaps one board could completely destroy what was in the minds of the Trustees in the best interests of all those involved. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. For that reason, I recommend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Harold Walker: The chairman of the trustees, Mr. Hunter Jones, who is also chairman of the Hotel and Catering Industrial Training Board, wrote to me as long ago as the middle of April about the problem that the Bill had created for the managers of the pension fund It is a matter of regret and legitimate criticism on our part that the new clause appeared on the Amendment Paper only last week. After the lapse of all that time we are left with completely inadequate time to consult those within the fund and those who will be affected by the changes in it.
  The matter is extremely technical and difficult. We are dealing with proposals that might affect the retirement provision for many thousands of people. It is also important that the House should bear in mind that the fund is a non-statutory arrangement. It is a voluntary arrangement, freely entered into by the boards and their staffs. It is extremely odd that a Government whose principal argument in favour of the measure has been the superiority of the voluntary arrangements over statutory provisions should now be asking the House to approve a statutory intervention into a totally voluntary arrangement.
  The unanimity rule to which the Minister referred was not required by statute, but was agreed by the 24 boards, the trustees of the fund and the eventual beneficiaries of the fund. In the same way in which they freely entered into that arrangement, they should be left freely to change it if it is found that difficulties are likely to arise as a consequence of the Bill.
  One can only assume that the changes that are contemplated, about which we have been told nothing, are likely to be objected to by some of the boards. Otherwise there would have been no need for the Minister to seek the change. If some changes were not likely to receive the approbation of the boards, there would be no need for the Government to table the new clause. We are entitled to ask: "What are the changes about which the trustees are so anxious and which they fear may be jeopardised if the change is not made?" We have not been given the answer.
  We cannot overlook the point that while the departure from the unanimity rule may be necessary for the changes that the trustees now have in mind, the letter that the Under-Secretary sent to Mr. Hunter Jones on 2 June should be considered. He said then:
  "The arrangements which I have outlined should appeal to every surviving board"—
  the phrase "every surviving board" should be noted—
  "since the entire cost would otherwise fall to be shared between them. However I accept that the rule could cause difficulty and delay in connection with the winding up of boards and that there is a case for changing the rule on more general grounds."
  In other words, the arrangements might be helpful in the future. They would make it easier to change any of the rules.
  The House must note that the consent that we are being asked to approve is one that will be given by the boards.

  295
  We must not overlook the fact that in that context the boards are the employers. In other words, we are merely being asked to consent to the approval of three-quarters of the employers. The beneficiaries, trade unions and members of staff are being given no say in that matter.
  I understand that there are 14 trustees and that only two of them are trade union representatives. I know from my time at the Department that that has been a matter of some anxiety on the part of the trade unions representing the staffs. We are entitled to ask the Minister what consultation took place, before the proposal was put on the Amendment Paper, with the staffs affected or their representatives. Have the unions been consulted?
  It is clear that the employers among the trustees, and the boards as employers, can combine to worsen the pension and redundancy provisions that have been secured over the years by collective bargaining. For example, we know that many employers are resentful about the index linking of pension arrangements for the staff. There is no doubt that many of them would anxiously consider a stronger opportunity to break that link in the future. What will be the rights of the ex-employees of the boards that the Ministers are contemplating abolishing and will be defunct? Will they have any say about pension arrangements that will affect future entitlement?
  Is there a mechanism to prevent future decisions from having a retrospective effect on ex-employees of boards that have been wound up? Furthermore, what about the three-quarters of the boards that may survive? How can there be three-quarters of 19, 17, 15, seven or five? We are entitled to know what numbers we are talking about.
  I recognise that the fund is facing difficulties as a result of what the Government have said, and not least because of something that they had not even touched on. We are talking not merely of straight pension arrangements. There is also the redundancy pension enhancement provision. The Minister may be waiting until we reach amendment No. 14 to say something about the extent to which the Government are prepared to underwrite the sums involved in the redundancy enhancement provision, which will be triggered off the moment that the Secretary of State starts to wield his axe.
  I am mindful that there are difficulties, but it is no part of the Opposition's task to help the Government out of the problems that they have created by their unwise measure. Unless we have more convincing statements, notwithstanding what the Minister said about the trustees meeting yesterday, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clause.
  Mr. Hooley: The new clause is technical, but it concerns an important and sensitive matter. Some employers have been alarmed about the consequencies that the winding up of ITBs will have on pension funds and their responsibilities. The CBI or the chambers of commerce have put a figure of £35 million on the cost to them of a major axeing of the ITBs to preserve pension rights of ITB staff.
  The new clause is fairly sweeping.
  Mr. Harold Walker: So that there is no misunderstanding, I point out that the letter from Mr. Hunter Jones of 14 April referred to the sum of £35 million only in respect of the provision to which I referred—the
  296
  redundancy pension enhancement. It is not the total cost of the accrued pension rights. It is merely that one liability if every board disappeared. Mr. Hunter Jones said:
  "If every board were to disappear it is estimated that the combined cost of underwriting this particular liability"—
  that is the redundancy pension enhancement scheme—
  "would exceed £35 million."
  Doubtless a much greater sum would be required to provide for the whole of the accrued pension fund liabilities.
  Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is a technical matter. The details are complicated and perhaps not widely understood. I do not claim to be competent to argue the details of pension funds.
  There is no doubt that employers are profoundly worried about the consequences for pension funds of the winding up of ITBs. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has spelt out one consequence. The concern may eventually inhibit the mass destruction of the ITBs, which at one stage was contemplated by the Secretary of State and for which he will still have powers under the Bill.
  I am not entirely clear whether the three-quarters rule applies to the existing industrial boards or whether it will be three-quarters of those that remain after some have been axed. At what stage does it apply and at what stage does it cease to apply? Can the existing rules be amended on the basis of a three-quarters assent of the existing boards, and subsequently on the basis of assent of the then existing boards, which may by that time have been reduced to eight or nine? It is a sweeping clause, which could have many consequences.
  5.45 pm
  The Minister hinted that the trade union trustees had no objection to the arrangement. I assure him that the TUC has powerful objections. For example, the combined ITB pension fund rules state that no changes may be made that adversely affect an individual member of the pension fund, which is a common provision in pension fund rules. The protection may have to be changed in the case of ITB employees made redundant when ITBs are wound up or merged, which would be opposed by the affiliated unions.
  The new clause would enable the trustees to amend the rules as they thought fit. It gives them absolute, unfettered discretion to make changes once they have the assent of three-quarters of the ITBs. The proportion chosen is curious. I do not have at my finger tips the number of employees of each board or the number of workers for whom they are responsible, but the number varies from millions down to a few thousand. The six biggest boards may dissent, but the 18 smallest ones, with a minority of workers and employers, may agree, and they could overrule the wishes of the largest boards. I cannot understand a provision under which large organisations, with a great many employees, responsible for a wide range of workers, can have their wishes overruled by smaller organisations, which, even combined, do not cover the same number of employers or have the same degree of responsibility.
  My other point concerns the voting powers of the trustees. My right hon. Friend said that there were 14 trustees, of which two were trade union nominees. Given the three-quarters rule, does it mean that the rules can be changed by a simple majority of the trustees? Do we need a vote of only seven, plus the casting vote of the chairman,

  297
  for the trustees to make a change in the rules? Can they make changes related to indexation of pensions, the level of pension with regard to the number of years of service, and so on?
  Pension rules are enormously complicated and important to the people whom they affect. We want to know not only what the safeguards will be for consent by the ITBs but what they are against a small number of trustees —seven out of only 14–fundamentally changing the rules, against possible dissent by seven or even four or five of their colleagues, which would be equally unsatisfactory.
  I am concerned about the phrase
  "such amendments of the rules …as they think fit"
  in relation to level of pension, indexation, qualifications, qualifying period of service and amount of pension. The whole range of the rules can apparently be amended under the clause, provided that a group of ITBs agree. The House should not enact such a sweeping clause in this form.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree that this is a technical and difficult matter, but I assure the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that, coupled with the money resolution and amendment No. 14, to which we shall come later, this is a genuine attempt to ensure that past, present and future beneficiaries of the ITB pension fund, in the event of those ITBs no longer being in existence, can benefit in full. It is a genuine attempt to ensure that all employees of the pension fund can participate as they have in the past.
  I accept entirely that it took a little time, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, as soon as we had formulated the money resolution, the new clause and the amendment we got them to him, so as to give him as much time as possible. It was a complicated matter and I admit that I still find it so.
  On the specific point put by both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend —the number of ITBs that might be left —we rehearsed that argument in Committee and no doubt shall continue to rehearse it today. As my right hon. Friend said in the debate on the earlier new clause, we have come to no decisions. The "three quarters" means exactly what it says. It means that at least 75 per cent. need to vote in favour.
  I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that the pension fund trustees envisage, on the advice of their actuary, that they will be likely to want to subdivide the fund, to set up a closed fund for the pensions of staff of boards which have been wound up and an open fund for the pensions of staff of boards which are retained. I think that the reasons for that will be obvious.
  In the event that one board actually objected to that and the trustees could not do it, as I understand it, they would not see their way to ensuring that the potential beneficiaries could benefit in the way that I think all hon. Members would wish them to benefit. That is why, at the behest of the trustees, we tabled the new clause.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation. As I said in opening the debate, the three trade union representatives were present at yesterday's meeting and wholly concurred with the Government's proposal. When I was originally approached, I assumed that I was being approached on behalf of all the trustees and not just the chairman, so I imagine that consultation had taken place there, too.
  298
  In conclusion, I assure the House that we are attempting to do what is best for past, present and indeed future employees of training boards.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that the pensions are index linked. Has there so far been any liability to public funds to top up the fund? I am always told that it is impossible to have a funded index-linked scheme. If there has been no occasion to top up the fund so far, is there any contingent liability upon public funds to do so in future?
  Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will realise, that is a related aspect of amendment No. 14, which we shall reach later. I shall therefore be able to reply to him then.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 187.

  Division No. 212]

  [5.54 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Alexander, Richard

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Arnold, Tom

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Farr, John

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

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

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Blackburn, John

  Fry, Peter

  Body, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Goodhart, Philip

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Gow, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Greenway, Harry

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

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

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Grist, Ian

  Buck, Antony

  Grylls, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hannam, John

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hooson, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Dover, Denshore

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lamont, Norman

  Eggar, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  299

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lee, John

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rost, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Loveridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  MacGregor, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Shepherd, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Silvester, Fred

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Sims, Roger

  Madel, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Major, John

  Speed, Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sproat, lain

  Mather, Carol

  Squire, Robin

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawby, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Martin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Mellor, David

  Stokes, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Monro, Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moore, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Donald

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Myles, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Neubert, Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Waddington, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wakeham, John

  Osborn, John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Waller, Gary

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Ward, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Wheeler, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pollock, Alexander

  Wickenden, Keith

  Porter, Barry

  Wilkinson, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. John Cope and

  Renton, Tim

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  NOES

  Adams, Allen

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Allaun, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Beith, A. J.

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

  Bennett, Andrew (Sf'kp't N)

  Campbell, Ian

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Bradley, Tom

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  300

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Cohen, Stanley

  McCartney, Hugh

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Conlan, Bernard

  McElhone, Frank

  Cook, Robin F.

  McKelvey, William

  Cowans, Harry

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Craigen, J. M.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Crowther, J. S.

  Magee, Bryan

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

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

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Deakins, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Dempsey, James

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dewar, Donald

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Dixon, Donald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dormand, Jack

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Dunn, James A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Eastham, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Morton, George

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

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  English, Michael

  Newens, Stanley

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Ewing, Harry

  Palmer, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  Parry, Robert

  Field, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Fitch, Alan

  Penhaligon, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Prescott, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Richardson, Jo

  Ford, Ben

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Forrester, John

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Foster, Derek

  Robertson, George

  Foulkes, George

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Rooker, J. W.

  George, Bruce

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Golding, John

  Sandelson, Neville

  Gourlay, Harry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Graham, Ted

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Silverman, Julius

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Snape, Peter

  Haynes, Frank

  Soley, Clive

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Stallard, A. W.

  Home Robertson, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Homewood, William

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hooley, Frank

  Stoddart, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Stott, Roger

  Howells, Geraint

  Strang, Gavin

  Huckfield, Les

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  John, Brynmor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Tilley, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Kerr, Russell

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Wainwright, H.(Colne V)

  Lamond, James

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Welsh, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  White, Frank R.

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Litherland, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

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

  301

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

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

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Joseph Dean

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  EFFECTIVE TRAINING ORGANISATIONS
  '(1) Before exercising his powers under section 9(1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 to amend or revoke an industrial training order, the Minister shall:—

  (a) publish criteria to define the activities of an effective training organisation as set out in sub-section (2) below;

  (b) ensure that an effective training organisation exists for each sector of industry covered by that Board, which is capable of fulfilling the criteria set out in subsection (2) below; and

  (c) publish an industrial training order, (as provided for in section 1 (1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964), to cover the activities of the effective training organisation in each sector.

  (2) Each effective training organisation must:
  (a) Establish a training body representative of employers and trade unions in the sector and of educational bodies closely concerned with the sector, which is capable of:—

  (i) representing their industry to the Manpower Services Commission and other Government Departments;

  (ii) being accountable to the sector, to Parliament and to the Manpower Services Commission for its activities;

  (iii) defining training standards for all occupational activities in the sector and identifying training initiatives, in consultation with the industry;

  (iv) collecting and maintaining manpower information for the industry; and

  (v) carrying out the agreed training strategies for the industry linked to overall Government training objectives.

  (b) Employ a sufficient nucleus of professional training staff who can, together with appropriate administrative support, achieve the training objectives laid down by the training body;
  (c) Undertake consultation with employers and relevant trade unions to seek a consensus in support of the implementation of training activities in the sector;
  (d) Demonstrate that it has a continuing capability to raise finance to undertake and complete the agreed training strategies identified by the Training Body, to provide training advice consultancy and direct training services requested by the sector, and to act as an agency for channelling Government funds for training to the sector;
  (e) Maintain the necessary manpower and financial resources to accredited company training schemes and assess company training achievements, and to operate systems for certifying existing and future training standards, where necessary;
  (f) In conjunction with employers, the relevant trade unions, appropriate educational bodies and educational establishments, provide and monitor training programmes relevant to needs of the sector with nationally acceptable qualifications at the outcome of these programmes, guaranteed—
  (i) by adequate links with local school and educational facilities, and
  (ii) by access to physical premises of employers in the industry.
  (g) Maintain adequate local, national and cross sectoral links to ensure the transferability of appropriate skills and to meet the skill requirements of new technologies. '.—[Mr. Penhaligon.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if we take with this new clause 4—Alternative organisations.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  It will be noted that the new clause, as well as being in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends, is also in the names of right hon. and hon. Members for almost every national political party in the House of Commons. The clause is about training, and my premise for proposing it is that I believe that we have a dramatically under-skilled nation.
  One of the great ironies of the current position is that, of the 2 ½million registered unemployed, only a small percentage have any substantial skill to offer a prospective employer.
  Sponsored training today is dominated by Government schemes, whether they be under the youth opportunities programme or work experience on employer's premises, to the extent of 440,000 places in the next 12 months. I do not believe that these represent real long-term training or that they will provide the people concerned with skills that will be useful to them for the rest of their lives, even if, in the current circumstances most of us will admit that they may serve some useful purpose.
  As we see it from the Liberal Benches, the Bill without amendment gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to tamper with the present arrangements for training. The industrial training boards are often too bureaucratic and there are too many of them, but they are in a unique position to identify manpower trends within each industrial sector. They can and do use their tripartite meetings to establish training programmes to meet training needs. We believe that they should not be simply swept away, and that we should not pass legislation that enables a Minister to sweep them away.
  The Government say that they would like to increase the voluntary approach to training. We take the view that there is something to be said for that. Volunteers are always better than pressed men, but in area training pressed men are perhaps better than no men at all. The theory is that the powers given to the Minister in the Bill will lead to a substantial reduction in both quality and quantity of training. We submit that the nation cannot afford that, and cannot afford taking the risk that it may happen.
  Mr. Hooley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about volunteers being better than pressed men. Does he agree that professionals are usually better than amateurs?
  Mr. Penhaligon: I accept that, although it does not seem to be relevant. One can have professionals under either arrangement. But I still take the view that pressed men in training are probably better than no men at all.
  The new clause is not designed to stop reorganisation but to make sure that any reorganisation that takes place is as least as good as that which existed previously, and preferably better.
  Before the Secretary of State can dismiss an industrial training board, he must, under the new clause, carry out several functions. First, he must define the criteria by which an effective training organisation—whether statutory or voluntary—is to be judged. Secondly, he must satisfy Parliament that there are good reasons for winding up the industrial training board and that an acceptable

  303
  alternative exists in each industrial sector to oversee training to meet existing and projected manpower needs. Thirdly, he must ensure that Parliament maintains a means to monitor industrial training and to make adjustments in the national interest.
  The remainder of the new clause defines a training organisation. Such an organisation must include employers, trade unions and associated educational bodies. It must be capable of representing industry to the Manpower Services Commission and to other Government bodies and it must be accountable to its own sector. It must define training standards and identify training initiatives in consultation with industry. It must collect and maintain manpower information for its own industry. It must carry out agreed training strategies for the industry, linked to the Government's overall training objectives. It must demonstrate that it has the continuing capacity to raise the necessary finance. In consultation with other relevant bodies, it must develop a nationally acceptable system of qualifications.
  Given that those criteria are fulfilled, if the Secretary of State should choose to change to a voluntary system we would have no reason to oppose that. Indeed, it could be argued that such a system might be better than the present arrangements, because it would be voluntary and would, at the same time, maintain all that is good in the present system. One would hope that that would improve the situation.
  To my knowledge, this is the first new clause to be tabled that has the signed support of members of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic Parties. In itself, that is a reason for closely examining the provisions. Before I became a Member of Parliament I worked in industry. I served my time as a fitter and turner apprentice. Admittedly that was some years ago, but I have served my time in a factory. Those who have firsthand knowledge of unemployment and of its character fear that if the Government's prediction of an upturn in the economy is right—even if some of us think that such optimism is not justified, let us be optimistic for a moment —there is still no reason to believe that the level of skills among the unemployed will enable such an upturn to succeed.
  Bad as the situation is, we fear that if the Bill is passed without the protection that I have outlined we might land up with an even worse system than the present one. The current Secretary of State is unlikely to approve of something that would make the situation worse. However, there is no guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman will hold that job for ever. Indeed, most of us read the newspapers regularly and find it surprising that he has held his job for so long. There is no guarantee that he will hold it for ever.
  We seek a minimum level of protection in order to ensure that training does not deteriorate from its currently inadequate level. I commend the new clause to the House.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Adley: I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). My position accords almost entirely with the Government's thinking and not with the views of some of my hon. Friends, who would like a wide-ranging reduction—if not a destruction—of the function and role of training boards.
  304
  The hon. Member for Truro criticised the Bill on the ground that it gave the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to tamper with the present structure. That is exactly what we need. There should be substantial tampering with some of our training boards. My concern about the new clause involves not its motivation, but its effect and drafting. I shall deal with a narrow point, because I should not like the House or the country to think that because the new clause has the well-advertised support that the hon. Gentleman has given it, it has gained automatic entry into the sunny uplands of industrial efficiency and harmony as we near the end of the twentieth century.
  One or two phrases in the new clause show a laissez-faire attitude towards and understanding of, the establishment of the training boards and of training itself. I declare an interest as a member of the National Council of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association and as marketing director of Commomwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Limited. I wish to restrict my remarks to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and to the new clause's effect on it. The industry may not be a typical example, but neither is it untypical of some of the industries for which training boards have been created.
  New clause 3(2)(a) states:
  "Establish a training body representative of employers and trade unions in the sector".
  There is in that phrase a dangerous assumption that should be challenged—that only trade unions can represent the views of employees. That is not so. The hon. Member for Truro must have many small companies in his constituency for which that proposition does not hold good.
  The HCITB is an example of a training board that suffers from unrepresentative membership. I submit that that situation would be enshrined rather than tackled if the new clause were accepted. The HCITB has 21 members. Two are from the General and Municipal Workers Union, two are from the Transport and General Workers Union, one is from the National Union of Railwaymen, one is from the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, one is from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and five come from the Government bureaucracy. By that I mean that three come from the Department of Education and Science and two from the Scottish Education Department. Thus, 12 of the 21 members are members of trade unions or of the bureaucracy.
  I wish to consider the industry that the board is supposed to represent, to see whether there is fair and sensible representation. There is not. If one takes the organisations that are within the HCITB's scope, there are 1,709,000 employees in the industry, of whom only 85,000 are trade union members. That is about 5 per cent.
  Many of that 5 per cent. are union members only because of the closed shop agreement that exists between British Transport Hotels, the NUR and the TSSA. That is a clear example of representation that is unrelated to the realities of the industry that the board is supposed to serve. The new clause would exacerbate a situation that some of us would like to change.
  If the training boards are to function properly they must have the respect of the industries involved. Respect can flow only if membership of the board involved bears a relationship to the reality on the ground and to the extent and role of trade unionism in a particular industry.

  305
  I do not wish to raise the temperature of the debate, but for many years the trade unions in the hotel and catering industry have tried —but significantly failed —to establish a foothold. I understand that Grand Metropolitan Hotels, with 28 per cent. of its employees trade union members, has the largest percentage of trade union membership among companies in the British hotel industry.
  Trust Houses Forte is the largest hotel group in Britain and it has a mere 4 per cent. of employees in union membership, despite substantial attempts over the years by the unions to obtain membership.
  Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not expect to get away with that. Will he confirm that many hotels and catering establishments have not only refused to recognise trade unions but have penalised and dismissed employees for membership of unions? One immediately thinks of the notorious Garners Steak Houses as one example. We could give more.
  Mr. Adley: That accusation is frequently made but rarely substantiated. In my current working knowledge of the industry, most responsible companies believe that they have made a fair offer to the various unions, namely, "You prove to us that in a secret ballot you can obtain membership of 50 per cent or more of the work people at any establishment and we will regard the union as the legitimate body to negotiate."
  My experience in the industry is that many people are more frightened of being in a union than of being out of a union. The picture that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to paint is not realistic. There may be a handful of rogue employers in this industry, as in any industry, but to suggest that that is a universal pattern is unsubstantiable and inaccurate.
  I propose to the hon. Member for Truro and those supporting the new clause that it tries to enshrine rigid and old-fashioned attitudes towards the rights of employees. I will not weary the House by reading the clause, as it is a long one, but it sets up the Secretary of State as a corporate nanny for British industry. In all honesty, and with the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, I do not believe that he or any Government are necessarily best fitted to fulfil the role of arbiter on what does or does not constitute a good training board or a good pattern or model of training for any industry.
  I want the employees in industries that are not heavily unionised to be represented by people selected other than through the trade union establishment. I am told that that presents great difficulties, although I have never been able to understand why.
  If one wants to find representatives of employees, it is not beyond the wit of man to find people either through advertising, in the case of the hotel industry through the Caterer and Hotelkeeper or the Catering Times. One could consult the trade bodies such as the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association or some of the smaller bodies which would be willing to make nominations. One can advertise, like anyone else, to find the right man for the job.
  I oppose the wording, if not the spirit, of the new clause. It is old-fashioned and couched in old-fashioned language and would not be helpful to the general proposition that we believe in good training. Many of the present boards, to use the words of the hon. Member for Truro, need to be tampered with widely. For that reason I am not prepared to support the new clause.
  Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Member is unlike some of his colleagues, who would like to see statutory training abolished. But what protection is there in the Bill to maintain minimum standards? Secretaries of State come and go and attitudes change. We perhaps have not done it perfectly—that would be surprising—but we have tried to introduce a safety net below which standards cannot drop.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman gives his case away when he says that Secretaries of State come and go. No Government can legislate for their successors. I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend. The Bill, as it came out of the Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, will enable industry generally to equip itself far better to cope with the problems of training than at present. The new clause may sound grand, as it does, but, for the reasons that I have given on this rather narrow point, I do not think that it would be helpful.
  Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that we are discussing new clause 4 with new clause 3. At what point may I move new clause 4?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may speak to his new clause. I may call him in due course to move it.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) may have confidence in his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he must ask himself whether he thinks the proposals enshrined in the Bill will be of any value to industrial training.
  I support the new clause, because I believe that it is correct. It attempts to ensure that proper training is given. As the House knows, I am concerned with the furniture industry. The Furniture Industry Training Board has been a shining example. It is an excellent board and has done tremendous work. It has the confidence of both sides of the industry. It would be a disaster if it were to be destroyed purely for political dogma.
  Everyone is considering how to resolve the problems if the industrial training boards are destroyed. My industry has a history of danger. Few people working in it do not at some time have a bad accident. The industrial training boards have done a remarkable amount of work in helping to prevent such accidents by good training and ensuring that good practices are inculcated upon young people and that mature workers are trained. The result is that the accident rate has been reduced substantially.
  That could have happened at any time; it did not need an industrial training board to do it. But for year after year, decade after decade, the private employer did not do it. There was nothing to stop his doing it, but he did not do it. Only with the advent of industrial training boards was this matter taken up, primarily because it needed organisation. It needed skilled manpower and, above all, resources. The private employer was not prepared to devote money to it, because he did not have the organisation and the necessary skills.
  If the present system is destroyed, why does the hon. Gentleman believe that we have all learnt so much and that the employer who in past years has refused to take action will now be prepared to take it?
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member will recall that a Conservative Government set up the training boards.

  307
  Those of us who support the Bill believe that some of the boards do a good job and, by general consent, some do not do a good job. Therefore, there is a need for change. The Bill seeks to create a framework for that change.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and excellent point, but why must he refer to political issues? We are talking about the importance and role of industrial training in industry. He has spoilt his case. I do not care who set up the boards—we are discussing their destruction.
  Mr. Adley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: It is no good the hon. Gentleman disagreeing. The whole ethos of the Bill is the destruction of industrial training boards. The furniture industry is so sure that a disastrous situation is upon it that it is seeking alternatives. That is disastrous.
  The furniture industry is a small, cottage industry. There are thousands of small employers employing fewer than 50 people. One does not have to hold a BSc (Hons) degree to understand the problems of trying to co-ordinate proper training schemes, as is now undertaken by the industrial training board, if it is all handed over to the voluntary system. The voluntary system has always existed, but it has never worked.
  I have read the reports of the Committee proceedings closely. On Second reading I intervened. Perhaps someone will give me an explanation now. If we destroy the value of what we have —albeit it may need improving —why is it argued that there will be a great opportunity to return to a voluntary system that did not work before?
  I want the provisions of a voluntary system to be spelt out. Whoever does so should take the furniture industry as an example. I invite him to come to Hackney Road in my constituency and view the tiny hovels in which furniture work is carried on. It is impossible to establish trade unions in them, let alone voluntary training schemes. I have tried to get the public health inspector in so that he can do something.
  6.30 pm
  If Conservative Members believe that in such circumstances employers will be prepared to say "Marvellous; I have been waiting all my life to contribute to a voluntary scheme", they are living in a world of fantasy. They must therefore explain how this voluntary scheme will happen.
  The British furniture manufacturers work closely with my own union, the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trade Union, which I represent. In that sense I declare my interest. There has been harmony. We have improved standards and safety, yet the British furniture manufacturers are saying that they will attempt to establish a regional organisation. It is possible to do that in High Wycombe or other areas where the furniture industry is concentrated, but it is not possible in the broad context of the furniture industry.
  The furniture manufacturers are well aware of the problem that existed previously. The good furniture manufacturer has always attempted to carry out training. He has always attempted to share his benefits with others. They whole-heartedly supported the establishment of industrial training boards because it meant that everyone would pay his share. Previously the good employer
  308
  undertook the training and the bad employer offered a halfpenny an hour more and took away the skilled worker. He cheated rather than paid his whack for the training. That could once again become a problem, and the furniture manufacturers know it.
  Secondly, who will set the criteria? There will be problems arising on the criteria which the MSC seeks. There will have to be field personnel and statistical research and information. We shall have to identify the skill shortages and appoint administrative personnel. How will all that be carried out on a voluntary basis in an industry such as the furniture industry? It has taken that industry all its time to keep its head above water. We are trying desperately to retain a furniture industry in Britain, that must compete against cheap imports from Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and even America. Recliner chairs are now coming into Britain at a price which would not even pay for the materials used by the British furniture industry, let alone for the manufacture of the product.
  The industry is desperately trying to keep its head above water, yet at this moment of crisis the Government are saying that they will get rid of the industrial training boards and make the employers responsible not only for the training but for the establishment of the organisation and the skilled personnel.
  The skilled personnel employed by the industrial training boards are extremely worried. They do not know what to do. They are now looking for alternatives. The danger is not only that we shall fail to provide the means for training but, more importantly, that there will be no training at all. The Government must face that issue tonight. Unless the new clause is accepted, there is no doubt that training in industries such as the furniture industry will disappear. Only the good furniture manufacturer will be able to continue training, and that will be on a reduced scale.
  I appreciate that the wording of the new clause may not be as good as wording produced by the efforts of the parliamentary draftsmen. Perhaps it needs tarting up, but there is another place in which that can be done. However, the Government should accept the principles enshrined in the new clause. The ethos of the argument is that someone must be resposible for the training and organisation and that everyone should share in the cost of training. Unless we accept that, the furniture industry in particular will go to the wall.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I welcome the chance to explain why I support the spirit of the new clause and the way in which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) spoke. He made it clear that there was all-party support for the new clause, and he moved it constructively. It is designed to improve the Bill. In that sense, it is not a negative new clause.
  The new clause is similar to a new clause tabled in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) and for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) which was not discussed. It is on that broad basis that one approaches it.
  It is essential to establish two things as we go through the exercise set up two and a half years ago by the last Administration. First, it is essential to retain the confidence of the many people who work for the industry training boards and who have done much since 1964 to

  309
  improve training standards. We all accept that standards vary, but we equally accept that training, while not ideal, is now much better than in 1964.
  I pay tribute to the many people on the ground. Those hon. Members who have accompanied the industrial advisers have seen how they are accepted in the factories and welcomed for the contribution that they have made. I pay tribute to them. It is essential that we hold their confidence during this critical time of the final review.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) showed that the Government must still convince many people that they are genuine in their desire to improve training and that they are not going for change merely for the sake of change or simply indulging in a negative financial exercise. It is important that the Government make it clear that they place as high a priority on skilled training in the future as they have in the past.
  To retain the confidence of those involved in training and to hold the confidence of many people throughout industry who are concerned about training, we must establish criteria that are as objective as possible and which command the widest agreement and consensus both in the House and outside.
  Although the new clauses may not be ideally drafted, they establish that principle. They reflect the importance of using criteria that are judged by all to be fair and progressive. That is the spirit in which I added my name to new clause 3. It is important that such a feeling should emanate from the House tonight. There is still wide distrust that concern that "voluntary" could mean a return to the very conditions that caused a Conservative Government to pass the original Act in 1964. None of us wants that. We all want to see things improve.
  It is in that spirit that one recommends the principle of the new clause My right hon. Friend will have to exercise the wisdom of Solomon once he receives the report of the Manpower Services Commission review. The new clause is meant to be helpful to him in that it establishes criteria, which he knows have the widest support both inside and outside the House, on which he can make that judgment.
  Mr. Hooley: I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in order in speaking to the substance of new clause 4 even though the House is not formally discussing it. One of the curiosities of the Bill is that not long before its introduction the Manpower Services Commission, which was created by a Conservative Government, carried out a wide-ranging review of the operation of the Employment and Training Act 1973. It produced a report called "Outlook on Training", which discussed with great thoroughness what it thought were the strengths and weaknesses of the ITB system. The report contained 27 recommendations and a number of sub-recommendations relating to how the system should develop.
  The last thing that one could argue from the report was that any power should be given to any Government to scrap industrial training boards. On the contrary, a vast number of recommendations suggested ways in which the operation of our training system should be strengthened. In case anyone believes that the proposals, in new clauses 3 and 4 are airy-fairy notions that hon. Members have produced without any reference to the actuality of the situation, I would point out that new clause 4–it is in
  310
  many ways a slightly more succinct statement of new clause 3–spells out a great many of the recommendations which the MSC review produced.
  I find it odd that the Government should askk the MSC to carry out another review, presumably to try to justify the provisions and intentions of the Bill. I should like to examine the review carried out by the MSC before this misconceived Bill was produced. I suspect that most hon. Members are already aware that the review body comprised highly experienced people from industry, the trade unions and education. They include Mr. Downing, Secretary of the CBI manpower services advisory panel, Mr. Berry, director of the Coventry and District Engineering Employers Association, leading trade union figures, the director of education of the metropolitan borough of Sandwell and other education figures.
  It was a substantial review body, and it took evidence from about 400 different organisations —employer organisations, trade unions, education organisations, training boards and many other organisations, including Government Departments. The document that it produced is substantial and authorititive. Nowhere does it suggest that powers of the kind that the Bill proposes should be given to the Secretary of State. Given the fact that the Bill will probably be enacted because of the Whipping power of the Government and the majority that they enjoy, it is proper that the House should endeavour to include a clause along the lines of new clause 3 or new clause 4.
  I wish to point out ways in which the provisions of new clause 4 square with the recommendations of the MSC review body. An example is the proposal in subsection (2) (a) of the new clause to maintain and collect manpower information in a particular industry. The review body, in recommendation 5(f), say that it is necessary to secure
  "the provision of reliable and consistent manpower intelligence."
  In recommendation 19 the review body says that it is necessary to ensure that
  "information is collected on a common or compatible basis where a number of different industries are involved with training problems."
  That is sensible. However, if the statutory organisation of the ITBs is abandoned, or if some sort of organisation is not put in the place of an ITB, as new clause 4 requires, it is difficult to see how information on manpower can be collected on a common or compatible basis, as the MSC review body recommended.
  It is not clear to me how any sensible statistics will be obtained for the Government on the need for skills and how to meet that need if the whole apparatus of industrial training boards is scrapped. It will be impossible to have sensible intelligence and manpower planning if the statutory apparatus is undermined or destroyed. New clause 4(2)(a) is four-square with the recommendations of the MSC review body. New clause 4(2)(b) deals with the need to represent industry to the Manpower Services Commission and other Government Departments. This matter was covered by recommendation 6 of the review body, which talked about
  "the obligation to develop better ways of consulting interested groups in relation to training policies"
  and suggested that work should be set in hand to devise the most appropriate means of achieving that aim.
  I should have thought it was obvious that Government Departments need some established bodies that they can consult about training requirements. Obviously, the Manpower Services Commission is the central body. No one seriously suggests that the MSC can take

  311
  responsibility for the entire range of industry and the 13 million workers covered by the ITBs. Clearly another tier is needed, represented by the ITBs. If, however, the ITBs are to be scrapped, something will have to be put in their place. The notion that employers voluntarily will race to put something in their place is nonsense. The Conservatives accepted that argument 17 years ago when they enacted the 1964 Act.
  The question of funding to meet industry's training needs was covered by recommendation 8 of the MSC review body, which said:
  "ITBs should continue to have powers to raise levy."
  I agree that the review body also suggested that the operating costs should be returned to industry, as the
  312
  Government now suggest, although the proposal was not well received by the CBI. The review body indicated that there had to be some clear and consistent statutory means for raising the money to fund training schemes. That is the intention of new clause 4(2)(c).
  Subsection (2)(d) deals with the need to carry out an industry training strategy linked to overall Government objectives and mentions the system of unified vocational preparation. This aspect is covered by recommendations 24 and 25 of the MSC review. Recommendation 25 states:
  "In order to extend vocational preparation for young people, the MSC should pay key training grants to employers who participate in UVP-type schemes,"
  and it goes on to talk about co-operation with colleges of education and so on.

  313
  Paragraph (e) refers to the provision of a nucleus of professional training staff. I suppose that the Government would argue that employers can do that. The big employers probably would, but then we are back to the old position that where large employers provide professional training staff and undertake training, the men and women they train are poached by other employers and there is no fairness.
  Paragraph (f) refers to
  "conducting full consultation and having the backing of a large majority of the employers in their industry".
  The Manpower Services Commission thought that that was necessary, because it referred to full consultation with both sides of industry about public involvement in training. If there is to be sensible consultation with employers in industry, there must be a framework for it. It is not possible to send a circular to 2,000 firms every three months to find out their views on particular training or manpower issues. It is much more sensible to have an industrial training board on which the employers can be represented and which can act as a channel for the employers to express their views to the trade unions within their industry and to the Government.
  Paragraph (h) refers to
  "creating a system of nationally acceptable qualifications at the outcome of their courses guaranteed—

  (i) by access to physical premises which are adequate fox the industry, and

  quote>(ii) by the provision of adequate links with local educational facilities".

  That is extremely important. While training in a general sense is valuable in itself, unless there is an accepted level of testing, and unless there is a guarantee that at the end of the day the boys and girls will pass a test or take a certificate that is accepted anywhere in the United Kingdom, the system is inadequate. There must be an organisation to ratify the certificate or the test that is given and make sure that it is generally acceptable nationwide. If there is no industrial training board, another organisation must be set up to produce this agreed system of training, agreed certification and agreed validation of the qualifications that the boys or girls achieve; and we might just as well retain the industrial training boards for that and other purposes.
  Paragraph (j) refers to the need to maintain close consultation with relevant trade unions. That is a matter of common sense. Certainly the MSC review body took the view that that was essential.
  Finally, in clause 4, there is mention of maintaining local, regional and cross-sectional links, and this, too, is covered by the recommendations of the MSC review body.
  If the Government go ahead with the Bill and use their powers to dissolve the ITBs it is essential, on all the evidence produced by employers, trade unions, education authorities and independent observers, that some organisation is put in its place to preserve the training for skills, which tie country desperately needs.
  If the Government say that they do not intend to wind up the ITBs, what is the justification for the Bill? There is no justification for the Bill unless the Government intend substantially to attack the existing industrial training structure. It is nonsense that we should have hours of debate in the House and in Committee, a financial resolution and the whole authority of the Bill to change the entire system if the Government say that they do not mean
  314
  it, that they do not intend anything drastic and are waiting for a review. If that is so, they should have not introduced the Bill.
  If the Government are determined to take these wide-ranging powers for this Secretary of State or another one —we do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman will survive in his present post —the proposals contained in new clause 3 or new clause 4, or a combination of the two, are a fundamental and necessary safeguard. The whole apparatus of industrial training on a statutory basis enacted by a Conservative Government in 1964 and in 1973 and put into operation by two successive Labour Governments should not be swept away without safeguards such as those set out in these clauses, because if it is infinite damage will be done to the basic economy of the country.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) spoke of "tampering" with the industrial training boards. I would prefer to tamper with them, provided that we ended up with more efficient training, rather than to abolish them. I am sorry to say that the Conservative Party has a track record of abolishing systems, rather than remoulding them. Time and again we have gone in for massive organisational changes, regardless of whether those changes produced better quality. We have only to think of water, local government, and health. I would hate the Conservatives to destroy this training system, when it can be remodelled.
  Companies and trade associations have bombarded us with criticisms of training boards. Some boards are much better than others; some training advisers are much better than others. There are bound to be criticisms of any system. If, in addition to asking companies whether they have criticisms of training boards and what they are, they are asked whether they want to fund the cost of training out of their own pockets, they will become hypercritical, and that is what has happened.
  We have been deluged with criticisms of the training boards, because we have suggested that the companies pay. That fact has highlighted all the criticisms. Companies have, therefore, opted for voluntary systems. I am sceptical of that. If companies want a voluntary system so as to get training on the cheap, we must question the whole premise of the operation, because we are in the business of getting better training, not poorer quality and cheaper training.
  Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend is not putting forward the view that cheaper training always means inferior training, is he? In many industries training was adequate before the introduction of training boards. When they were introduced training continued, with the addition of a lot of bureaucracy, which put up the cost.
  Dr. Hampson: I do not deny that there is a lot of bureaucracy. That is one of my major criticisms of the system. The great value of our training system is the cutting edge, the people who are out and about dealing with the companies, the training advisers. The bulk of the bureaucracy lies not in the training boards, particularly riot at that cutting edge; it lies with the Manpower Services Commission.
  My worry is that if we have only voluntary boards and training is left to the industries and the trade associations we shall end up, almost inexorably, by giving the

  315
  Manpower Services Commission a bigger job, because the commission will insist on more and more scrutiny of the voluntary system. How else can a voluntary system be held to the standards unless it is subjected to the scrutiny of the MSC? I would not like to see that.
  If that happened, instead of training advisers and people from the industry going round the companies, the bureaucrats from the MSC would be going round, and that would be worse than the system that we have now. There is a danger that one would simply whet the appetitie of the Manpower Services Commission, which is, I agree, a menace from the bureaucratic point of view —apart from the special programme division, for which I have a lot of time.
  7 pm
  What I was going to add is relevant to my hon. Friend's point. Before this system was established, even before the '70s, many companies had effective training. Many big companies, such as ICI, obviously still do. The boards will not be able to contribute to the efforts and the stance taken on training by those companies.
  Some companies tell us that they would like to see a change, on the basis that what we have is no longer relevant and has served its purpose. Many admit that there was some value in the system but argue that it is no longer relevant. Why not? The needs of the nation in terms of skill acquisition have grown, not diminshed. One has only to look at Japan, Germany and various other countries to see that they are developing more and more sophisticated systems. They are not leaving it to companies to do what they like.
  We are in an internationally competitive market. We are competing not just for goods and market places for those goods, but for training. We are in competition for skills. If we cannot match the skills of our competitior nations we will suffer as a marketing and producing nation.
  Those who attack the system may want voluntary boards, but if we are not careful voluntary boards will have no teeth. Nobody likes tigers with teeth. That is the relevance of the new clause, so I put my name to it, although it is too rigid and has important gaps. If we are to change the system, I want to see a mixed system with some statutory provision as well as some voluntary boards. There have to be guidelines and ground rules, or the boards will be tigers with no teeth and the training will be the poorer.
  Two things are vital: first, the definition and the maintenance of training standards; secondly —there is a growing consensus on this —much more of a local dimension in training. The more we try to develop our youth programmes into semi-training programmes instead of having young people counting lamp-posts in Barnsley, the more important it is to have a localised operation to ensure that work experience is available for the numbers of young people involved.
  We need that dimension, but we also need a matrix. We cannot get away with only a local dimension, because we must have national training standards. Therefore, a sectoral role is involved as well. So one key aspect is the setting and maintenance of those national standards.
  The crux of some of the remarks that I have made is that the voluntary bodies must have field staff. Like my hon.
  316
  Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) I have gone around talking to boards, and not just to the bosses of the boards who sit in offices. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) may be interested to hear that I went with a training adviser to a furniture company in Warrington, as it happens; this was before anything dramatic happened in that part of the world! I was impressed to see that it was not a policing role that the training adviser was engaged in but a partnership. He was helping a small company. He was invited to board meetings because he had proved himself to be of help.
  When one talks about training, it is easy, as I have done many times, to focus on the training of apprentices or of people on the shop floor, but it is also about the training of managers, especially men who may have been in big companies and who have branched out to take risks on their own. They may not have the necessary skills; they need somebody to show them where the courses are and to give them help in their own companies on the basis of experience. That was happening in the company that I visited. There was a real partnership.
  For many years —for centuries —the British nation has been obsessed with amateurism. It is felt that somehow we can all get by and "learn from our mistakes". This is a cliche in the English language. But most people do not learn; they go on making mistakes and they actually make worse mistakes. Therefore, help should be provided for managers in small companies. The sort of partnership relationship that I saw is fruitful and important, but it does not happen everywhere. Not all training advisers have that relationship with companies, and not all training boards work in that way.
  Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the training boards can be especially useful in some of the more traditional industries where things have always been done the same way? I am thinking particularly of wool textiles, a traditional industry. I recently visited the training board for wool textiles and was impressed by the progressive influence that it is exercising in that old industry, where things have been done one way for years.
  Dr. Hampson: My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was making. What I saw in the furniture board was an ideal working relationship, but that does not mean that it applies across all boards. That is why we need something, such as these clauses which require that the system has training advisers and field staff who have been recruited from the industry, to help build up the necessary relationship.
  The Bill will provide the framework for change. We have yet to see what the eventual system will be, but I should not like it to be as it is with some of the existing voluntary boards. The local government board and the insurance industry board do not have field staff or an effective relationship. Those boards hold plenty of courses —which are often simply junkets. No one can guarantee that what people learn on those courses, if they learn anything, will be of any relevance or use when they return to their jobs. It is easy to set up a system to produce hoops through which companies can jump easily by sending a handful of young people or workers on a course or two and so meet the requirement. That is not the provision that I wish to see.

  317
  I have one criticism. The new clause, like the debate, is too narrowly focused on ITBs. We should not think of the nation's training only in the context of whether we retain or abolish the existing industry training boards.
  The new dimension, which all hon. Members increasingly recognise, is what is becoming known as vocational preparation. There must be not just specified skilled training, but a broader approach. Whatever system we establsh must take account of that. Many of the boards have moved into this area. Some have been very good with schemes that try to bridge the gap between industry and education. Other boards have been slower.
  Attitudes vary within the boards. Some people accept the traditional view that the boards were geared and acountable to the industry and had to meet the skilled training needs, of that industry, and that was the end of their responsibility. I should like to believe that we have gone beyond that and that the Government are seeking to use the boards in the broader dimension of vocational preparation.
  If we are to go for vocational preparation, providing work experience and related courses for the mass of young people after they leave school, what is the point of setting up an entirely new apparatus, more bureaucracy to run it and yet another system when there is a system already on the ground in the ITBs, however imperfect it may be? The nucleus is there, with people out and about in the companies. They must talk to the companies and get them to involve themselves with the vocational preparation programmes.
  In whatever guidelines are established by the Government for a voluntary or semi-voluntary system the key must be that they are involved in the local matrix, interlocked with other boards and agencies in the area, such as the careers service and the local education authority, dovetailing in so that we get effective vocational preparation programmes.
  As I said at the start, organisational change in itself means nothing. It cannot guarantee improved quality. We should look with flexibility and sensitivity at what we have on the ground and seek to improve it, rather than throw it all out of the window.
  Mr. David Ennals: The test of the integrity of the Government's commitment to industrial training —I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's integrity —will be in their reply to this debate, because it has been interesting to see the way in which the new clauses have been framed and the course that the debate has taken.
  I was involved in drafting a new clause, only to discover when I sought to table it that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) had tabled a motion in similar terms. I discovered later that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley) had drafted another motion in similar terms. Moreover, there is little difference between new clauses 3 and 4. They deal with the same principles, the same commitments and the same types of guidelines that we believe are necessary and which I feel that the Secretary of State would want to see in operation.
  It is interesting, too, to note that members of all four national parties have associated themselves with new clause 3. That is also true of this debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who properly declared his interest in the hotel and catering
  318
  industries, criticised the new clause on what I feel was a very narrow basis. It is true that trade union representation in the catering industry is not as good as I or the Secretary of State would wish. The Secretary of State himself said that when workers are in difficulties they should be members of trade unions. He has never doubted that. Moreover, there has been a good deal of exploitation in the catering industry. Therefore, I view that as a narrow criticism.
  The Government should say whether they are really committed to the vital principle that we must expand training facilities both now and during the next 10 or 15 years rather than contract it. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, because it seemed to me that its objective —perhaps I was wrong; I was not a member of the Committee —was to undermine much of the good work done by the industrial training boards.
  The purpose of the two new clauses is to set the record right. Of course, they have been criticised. Some hon. Members who support the new clause accept the principle of voluntarism. Others, like myself and Conservative Members, believe that it was right to have a statutory requirement in 1964, which has remained ever since.
  It is important to lay down criteria concerning the nature of the co-operation, professionalism and structure of training boards at a time when we are faced with the highest unemployment rate that we have ever known. We should look forward to a time when the economy picks up —none of us knows when that will be or how quickly it will come —and new skills and industrial techniques will have to be developed so that our country can recover quickly from today's grim situation.
  7.15 pm
  It is strange that the responsibilities of ITBs are not set out in the Bill. Those who drafted the new clauses were determined that clear criteria should be established to guide the Secretary of State. That is what we sought to do. I do not mind if the Secretary of State says that the wording is not quite right. I want him to accept the principle of the new clauses and the arguments that have been presented by members of all parties in the House. If he will apply his mind to it and say that in another place there will be an opportunity to bring forward new wording that will satisfy both himself and us, I think that he will receive a warm response from the House, industry, employers and trade unions, and certainly from the unemployed people who hope that they will at some time have the opportunity of training for and participating in industry.
  I make that personal plea to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will accept the principle of what has been argued, even if he does not accept the letter of the new clause.
  Mr. Needham: I shall range somewhat widely over the new clause, because I think that the House is having some difficulty in understanding the Government's strategy on training, as the Bill deals with only one part of it.
  I was honoured when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), in his usual gracious way, referred to the clause that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) tabled in Committee, which is similar to new clauses 3 and 4, but which, unfortunately, there was not time to discuss on that occasion.
  If I may say so to my right hon. Friend, we are in danger of being in a bit of a "Prior pea-souper" with the present strategy for training. The Government appear to have two

  319
  positions. One is to develop the youth opportunities programme into a traineeship for a year, with a unified vocational preparation element in it, and perhaps to extend that to a two-year course through the MSC. That will probably work most effectively at area, regional and at cross-sector levels. But, secondly, we need industrial training, which since 1964 has been in the hands of the industrial training boards.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who says that voluntarism does not work, or does not work well. It does work, and it can work well. I agree that before 1964 the level of training was not what it ought to have been. I believe, too, that the post-1981 level of training is not what it ought to be. We must all accept that in some instances—perhaps I could go so far as to say in many instances—industrial training boards have been a disappointment, when we consider the number and standards of apprentices.
  There has been a lot of talk about setting standards. The industrial training boards have not altered apprenticeship standards significantly, nor have they altered their numbers significantly. They have been unable to change the old concept of time serving, instead of module training and standards. Thus, the record of the industrial training boards is not an altogether happy one.
  In those circumstances, perhaps it is not a bad idea to review what industrial traininig boards are doing and find other methods, where applicable, of reforming the training structure. That is of great importance to the Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is determined to improve the standard of training.
  In Committee I tabled a new clause because I felt that it was important for the Government, with the MSC, to spell out the criteria that they would use when the new system came into operation. In a letter to the chairman of the MSC on 26 November 1980 my right hon. Friend said:
  "The criteria from which, as I see it, my final decision will need to be based would include the likelihood of shortages of trained manpower in the economic upturn, the emerging demand for trained manpower in new technologies and the need for adequate quality of training (including agreed standards) for opportunities for vocational preparation of young people at all levels, and for wide opportunities for craft apprentices and for adult training."
  That goes a considerable way towards setting out the criteria in the new clause, but it does not go as far as I should like. For example, it will be difficult to look into the future and determine where shortages might develop. It might not be wise to rely completely on voluntary systems, when unforseen shortages might occur.
  Furthermore, the criteria for funding need to be more clearly spelt out by my right hon. Friend. Without proper criteria for funding there will be no guarantee of continuity. It is unlikely that there will be adequate staffing arrangements. The criteria that my right hon. Friend mentioned did not include the collation of information, for examaple, although that is of enormous importance. I hope that the Minister will expand on the criteria. Many of us, understandably, are worried that the Government have not been sufficiently specific.
  I shall not be able to support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). For example, I cannot agree that the ITBs should define
  320
  training standards for all occupations in the sector. It is not right for ITBs to decide the level of training in accountancy, management, marketing or selling. They have broader implications and have never been regarded as coming under the ITBs.
  I cannot support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Healey. It differs from mine in one crucial respect. It omits the word "voluntary". It is not wise to exclude the use of voluntary training.
  Unless the Government are careful, they are likely to fall into a credibility gap. They must make it clear beyond peradventure that their commitment to adult and youth training via industry and the MSC in the localties and regions is total. If they do that they will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Dan Jones: For reasons that are different from those of my hon. Friend from Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) I support the theories that he has advanced. Imperfect creature that I am, I believe that I am in a position to do that with practical knowledge. I worked in a toolroom for some years. Consequently, I believe that I know what I am talking about from a practical point of view.
  I am delighted that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber. He will remember when a deputation of hon. Members went to see him at Tothill Street. He will also remember that I asked him what he would do about skilled labour if there were a resurgence in the economy. He said that he did not know. Possibly that was because he was in the midst of deliberations.
  I say sincerely to the Minister that if I were a member of the CBI today I should be afraid to invest a pound note. Let it be understood that unless we have skilled labour in abundance our competitive edge will disappear. Some hon. Members express concern about Japan. I am more anxious about Europe, because that is only across the water.
  Caroline St. John-Brooks has written an article, which the Minister might have read. I shall read brief excerpts from it. She says:
  "In West Germany 93 per cent. of young people stay in education or take up apprenticeships. In France 81 per cent. do. In Britain … 44 per cent."
  We are not in the running. These are facts.
  She continues:
  "There is a lot of catching up to be done, not least in persuading industry that it must take more responsibility for training the workforce of the future—a responsibility it has shirked so far."
  I am not sure that the dear girl is correct in saying that industry has shirked responsibility. However, I shall explain why it has not extended itself as well as it might.
  Miss St. John-Brooks writes:
  "Industrial training is declining. In 1979, 80,000 young people were on recognised apprenticeship schemes. Last year there were 60,000, and the MSC is worried that 1981–82 could see a further fall to about 53,000 if there is not a further injection of government cash. At the moment, about 22,000 apprenticeships get central government funding."
  That is hopelessly insufficient. The Minister realises that, because he is a highly intelligent man who is not without a good deal of moral courage. I pay that tribute sincerely. However, he must realise that unless money is spent to train people our difficulties will be compounded.
  The Minister should have personal consultations with his staff. When I was in industry we found and trained staff to become thoroughly expert. They were pinched from us

  321
  by neighbouring companies which did not have apprenticeship schemes. They were pinched from us because some companies offered inflated wages. Does the Minister want that? Does he really want vicious competition in industry? Does he not think that employers are entitled to stability? I believe that they are.
  Some of my hon. Friends might chastise me for putting the employers' case. My hon. Friends can do what they like. When I am in the House I try to speak the truth. I do not want to be engaged in too many doctrinaire tactics. The situation is too dangerous for that.
  Without reliability and stability in industry it is doubtful whether we shall have the skilled lablour to compete with others. We are hopelessly understaffed in terms of skilled labour.
  7.30 pm
  I am genuinely concerned about the number of youngsters who are conducting vandalism on a scale which, to anyone with even elementary compassion, is frightening. I am primarily concerned with my constituency, because that is my responsibility. Let us apply ordinary psychology. What are the youngsters to do when they sit on their backsides day after day with no hope for the future? They are, to use the vernacular, broke. I have extraordinary compassion for those youngsters. I know what a temptation it is.
  That situation has arisen needlessly in our lives, and it is connected with industrial development. The youngsters should be working for their living, not being paid by the Government to sit on their backsides waiting for the passing old dear who, traditionally, has a bag on her arm. She is maltreated in the process of getting the bag off her arm so that the offender can obtain the proceeds of that bag. My widowed mother was similarly placed when she died in my arms.
  Such a position must be the responsibility of the Government. I do not say that with glee. Indeed, I am deeply sorry to say it. But the problem is connected with our economy. Those who should be at work need to be taught the skills so that they can make a contribution to our society. I say with deep regret that those youngsters are being tutored to scrounge for everything and to commit themselves to callous acts of almost studied indifference. The issues are linked.
  I make a sincere appeal to the Secretary of State to take the CBI into his confidence and ask it what it wants. Its members eventually will have to invest in industry. It is only fair that they should know precisely what they are investing in.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) on his speech. It was delivered with the honesty, flair and drama which only those from Wales can achieve. My contribution to the debate will be brief.
  I have a certain sympathy with the new clause. I understand what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is trying to achieve. I appreciate that other hon. Members have tabled a further new clause that has similar objectives. These new clauses relate to alternative organisations for those sectors in which industrial training boards are to be abolished. I see a worried look on the face of the Government Whip. I assure him that I do not agree with the details of the new clauses. I shall not vote for them if the House divides. Nevertheless, will my right hon.
  322
  Friend the Secretary of State look again at the training information gap before the Bill reaches another place, and possibly bring forward a Government new clause?
  The new clause assumes that the buck for our national training effort, if it is being passed, finally stops with the Government. When everything in the garden is rosy, and when training needs are being identified and properly met, there is no need for Government involvement. But even the most reactionary, free-enterprise fanatic cannot escape the fact that when things go wrong, when training needs are not properly identified, when gaps appear in our training provisions and the Government are not able to step in with the carrot or the stick, or both—as they are able to do now under the ITB levy grant system—Parliament should have the opportunity to say whether it agrees with the alternative arrangements for achieving our training objectives. At regular intervals it should decide whether the system, be it voluntary or otherwise, is working satisfactorily.
  I do not understand why it is thought that when an ITB has been wound up it is either necessary or right to put a special new organisation in its place. We want to break out of the rigid sectoral structure. Often an existing organisation could replace an ITB. Sometimes a loose framework would be required. It all depends on the industry concerned.
  If the Government stand by their objectives for training, as outlined in the Secretary of State's speech on 26 November, which include, first, a more systematic provision for vocational preparation for youngsters, secondly, a modernised and more flexible apprenticeship system and, thirdly, wider opportunities for adult training and retraining, then before any voluntary arrangements are accepted by the Government they must be shown to be capable of meeting those objectives. That is why the information referred to in the new clause and the points about training criteria raised by hon. Members are important.
  Information is vital—both its dissemination and its collection. Those who take overall responsibility for our vocational training must have information related to what is needed, to what resources are available to meet the needs, and to how the resources can be utilised. It is important to provide information to employers and trainees. It is the lack of up-to-date information that helps to deprive our present training system of the flexibility required to cope with today's rapidly changing employment requirements.
  The debate has given me the opportunity to highlight the importance of filling what I have called the information gap—a gap that could widen when some ITBs are abolished. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of the comments made in support of the new clauses and possibly consider bringing forward an appropriate Government new clause before the Bill goes to another place.
  Mr. Foster: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) is unable to join us in the Lobby this evening. He has some worries about the legislation as presently framed, as he freely admitted. New clauses 3 and 4 go to the nub of the present business. I warn Conservative Members who are tempted to vote for them—I hope that they will do so—that they will be voting for a different Employment and Training Bill than that currently before the House.

  323
  From time to time, in my weaker moments, I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State. He has had to stand at the Dispatch Box month after month defending the indefensible—the rising unemployment figures. He is beleaguered by Conservative Members because of his softness on employment legislation. If reports are true, he is beleaguered by his Prime Minister because he will not stand up to the trade unions as an honest, strong, virile Conservative should.
  The right hon. Gentleman is desperate for a success. In his desperate search he has come forward with the new training initiative. It is an initiative that I greatly support. However, in his euphoria at having found a desperately sought success he allows himself to be conned by his Right wing into introducing legislation that will make it impossible for him to implement the new training initiative.
  Some of the more perceptive of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have recognised that and are prepared to put their names to new clause 3 in an attempt to rescue the right hon. Gentleman from himself. They recognise that if the Bill is enacted and if the right hon. Gentleman adheres to his intention to rely upon the principle of voluntarism, except in a few key sectors where wider training objectives may be necessary, he will have nothing left with which to achieve the success that he so desperately needs.
  During our discussions on the Bill we felt that we were beginning to get through to the Under-Secretary of State. We treated him to a barrage of arguments. We asked him to persuade his right hon. Friend that he desperately needed to be able to implement the new training initiative. We asked him to persuade the Secretary of State to accept that he would need the boards and that if he abolished them he would need some industrial training organisations to perform the same functions as effectively. We were glad that it was reported in The Times Educational Supplement on 27 April that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), seemed to be coming in our direction. It seemed that we had made some impression upon him. It is reported in the TES that the hon. Gentleman had said at Plymouth
  "that the boards would only be kept 'where there is no adequate alternatives'."
  The article continued:
  "Until now Ministers have been saying that the boards would only be retained in a few key sectors where they could be shown to be essential."
  However, the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:
  "We are not going to let companies off the hook of statutory boards to slip back into inefficient training, skill shortages and poaching."
  I seem to recognise those expressions from the Committee. Indeed, some of those expressions have been used by my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening.
  The words that the Minister used could have been drawn from our proceedings in Committee. I remember distinctly some of my hon. Friends advancing exactly those arguments. According to the TES, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "We are not going to let companies off the hook".
  He continued:
  "Any voluntary arrangements would have to meet essential needs which would include: monitoring skill shortages and other
  324
  training needs and arranging to deal with them, publicising up-to-date training standards, working with trade unions and education."
  It seems that the Government Front Bench are moving in the direction of new clause 3. They are not going far enough, but they seem to be moving in that direction, especially judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said on 27 April. It is no wonder that the writer of the article to which I have referred headed it:
  "Government ready to renege over axing of the training boards."
  I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will have some suitable reply to the challenges to which he laid himself open. On the other hand, he may be reneging once again on his statements of 27 April.
  If the Government are to get rid of the industrial training boards, they will need to put something in their place. If we are to have the substantial increase in the quantity and quality of training that I know the Secretary of State dearly wants to achieve, the replacement organisations will have to be effective. I do not understand how they can be effective organisations unless they perform functions similar to those undertaken by the existing boards. I have not heard one convincing argument that a voluntary set of arrangements and a voluntary board could fulfil similar functions more effectively. No doubt the Minister will be able to advance some plausible reasons for thinking that that can be done.
  7.45 pm
  The hon. Gentleman thinks that voluntary arrangements are prima facie more effective than statutory arrangements. We believe that the opposite applies. I do not want to go through all the subsections and paragraphs of new clauses 3 and 4, but the first line of subsection (2)(d) of new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley), states:
  "The organisations referred to in subsection (1) above must be capable of"—
  and paragraph (d) provides:
  "carrying out the industry's training strategy linked to overall Government objectives, such as unified vocational preparation."
  That is one of the laudable wider objectives set out by the Secretary of State and he needs the boards to enable him to achieve it.
  As I said in Committee, we have a great opportunity. We all deplore the horrific proportions of youth unemployment. However, we have the opportunity of marrying the youth opportunities programme with the unified vocational preparation programme, which at present is small. I know that the Government would like to increase it so that it embraces about 20,000 young people. Even if they achieve 20,000, that will be less than one-tenth of the 300,000 young people who enter industries in which there is no training.
  In my experience the industrial training boards have played a major part in devising the training schemes under UVP. How will the right hon. Gentleman be able to assure himself, the House and the training generally that he will be able to provide vocational training for all 16 to 17-yearolds who do not go into work or further education?
  If the right hon. Gentleman is to do it by the marriage of YOP and UVP, how will he ensure that the vocational training programmes that are embodied in the new initiative will be directly relevant to industry? He must ensure that the young people who are now engaged in the work experience scheme have their training and work experience fully integrated with company training

  325
  programmes. He must ensure that the young people who go on to UVP have their training programmes similarly fully integrated into the company's training policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a great problem. First, he has to determine how to deliver the goods. His second problem is to get the necessary quality of training programme written into the vocational preparation programme for 16 to 17-year-olds.
  The present youth opportunites programme is inadequate and the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that now. It has great potential, but unless he devotes a great deal of his time to ensuring quality of education and training in the programme, young people in large numbers will vote with their feet and the programme will lose all credibility.
  How will the Secretary of State ensure the marriage of the youth opportunities programme and UVP and the quality of education and training in both those programmes without industrial training boards? If he feels that the onus of proof lies on the Opposition to prove that the ITBs are more efficient than voluntary arrangements, I shall throw that back in his face and say that the onus is entirely on his shoulders to show us how to achieve the education and training quality that we all expect in YOP and UBP without the industrial training boards.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: In the eager anticipation that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will advise the House to reject decisively the two new clauses, I rise to give him wholehearted support.
  A common theme that runs through both new clauses is that it is possible to set up various bodies that can oversee every company and industry in the United Kingdom and tell the managers in those companies how they should train their staff. Clause 3 refers to assessing company training achievements. New clause 4 refers to certifying existing standards.
  Who are those supernumeraries who will be able to advise the managers of industries in the United Kingdom on how they should go about training all the personnel whom they employ? I can speak from experience, because my company—I declared my interest on Second Reading—contributes to the distributive industry training board, which is one of the largest industrial training boards.
  By coincidence, last Thursday, an officer from the distributive industry training board called at my company to talk to the training officer. I joined in the discussions, because I was anxious to find out how it was possible for my company to claim back some of the levy that it pays. That young man was a good employee of the board. Nothing that I say should adversely reflect on him. He was an able representative of the board. He told me that it was his job to advise companies on how to get back by way of grant much of the levy that they paid. He gave me a copy of a publication of the distributive industry training board called
  "Levy Exemption Remission and Grants, No. 4".
  It is current, because it is operative from 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1982.
  Under levy exemption criteria, heading No. 1 is "Policy" and paragraph a reads:
  "newcomers to the firm will receive 'off-the-job' induction training supervised by a qualified instructor."
  I do not know what my right hon. Friend or other hon. Members understand by the expression "off the job". I have always believed it to mean going away on a course,
  326
  on a seminar or having some training away from the place of employment. However, I was surprised, because the young man told me that that was not correct. If someone on the trade counter had a discussion in the manager's office, he would be receiving training off the job. Someone who works in the warehouse and who has discussions with a director is being trained off the job. Therefore, probably all companies could meet that criteria.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I should like to know what possible training one should want in a warehouse.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member makes a splendid point. Much training is undertaken in every warehouse. The training is carried out by those who are experienced in working with those who join the firm. A great deal of training is carried out in the warehouse so that one may learn how the products are properly warehoused, packaged and despatched. However, it is difficult to quantify that training and to claim back the levy that is being paid for the employees in the warehouse.
  I asked the representative from the distributive industry training board what was meant by the words "induction training", because I thought that that was important. He gave me another piece of paper, which is the suggested induction programme. Item No. 1 is: "Welcome to the firm". We welcome new employees. I believe that most companies do that. However, we do not note down that we welcomed the new man. We welcome him automatically.
  Item No. 2 is:
  "Show the cloakroom and personal locker".
  I believe that most new employees would be able to find the cloakroom quite quickly or they would ask one of their colleagues where it was.
  Item No. 3 is:
  "Introduce to other staff and also to 'Sponsor' who will take new employee to breaks.".
  Item No. 4 is:
  "Explanation of meal breaks, times, facilities and geography of the building."
  That training board has been in existence for 16 years. It is assessing—as do the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and others of my hon. Friends—whether a firm is training properly. There is no other way in which to assess training in the distributive industry. The firms that make up that industry have different approaches. There are diverse parts of the industry. No training criteria can suit all the firms. However, those in the House who have had no experience of the industry say that one cannot do away with the distributive industry training board and that it must be kept in existence. They ask what will take its place. One does not need anything to take its place, because British management is capable of training its employees. If it does not, its companies will not be profitable and will sink. The climate in the United Kingdom today is such that training is essential. No good management will not train properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) referred to the new clauses as being a corporate nanny. That is exactly what they are. Industry does not want such nonsense to be imposed on it.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has introduced computerised stock control in his company, but if he has he will know that the training for it is more substantial than simply covering where the

  327
  tea room is and so on. If he put a number of employees through a complicated course of computerised stock control, which will come, whether or not it is in his company, how would he feel if the company down the road with which he competes saw that those men were excellent and well-trained, offered them an extra couple of hundred pounds a year and down the road they went?
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Only the efficient company can afford the investment of putting in computers. My company is putting one in now. Companies which are inefficient, which do not do their own training and which poach will never be able to afford to install a computer.
  I am happy to face the fact that after we have trained our employees to use the computer some poaching may occur. However, if a firm has a happy relationship with all its employees, if they are paid well and are well looked after, they will not allow themselves to be poached. It is a question not just of training but of offering a better environment in industry and of inducing employees away not because they are trained, but because one can offer them greater reward or better facilities. That is fair and proper in a capitalist society. I do not mind competition on that score any day of the week.
  As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington called the two clauses a corporate nanny, which is what they are. They are not required by industry. I hope that the House will decisively reject what I regard as pusillanimous piffle.
  8 pm
  Mr. John Golding: I am under pressure from the conspiracy of Whips to speak briefly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) wants me to keep my remarks to a minimum.
  I cannot let pass the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, (Mr. Taylor). Any hon. Member who has entered Parliament through a by-election will know something about ineffective working through lack of training. No hon. Member should pour scorn on an employer who shows an employee the geography of the place. He should admit that his early months were not too effective because he was not shown the geography of this place. The effectiveness of hon. Members is less in their early years than it is later, because we have to learn as we go along. There is no effective training for the practicalities of the job. I am astonished to meet hon. Members who, even late in their careers, do not know the rules of procedure and are not precisely aware of how to achieve their objectives. The occupation of being a Member of Parliament illustrates better than any other the need for training and experience to make one effective.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: The point is not so much whether management shows the geography. It is that one has to catalogue that one is doing so. One pays a levy and claims it back again, which is nonsense.
  Mr. Golding: It is far from being nonsense. Many employers do not do so. It is a valuable service to an employee. It makes people feel at ease, at home and welcome to the firm, although it does not always happen.
  My quarrel with the Government is that it is not clear why we are training. What is essential? One criterion is
  328
  that training is essential if without it there would be no skilled workers to meet the market. I am at one with the Government on that. However, other training is highly desirable.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West. Profitability does not automatically depend upon training. Each shop or restaurant in a high street can be equally inefficient. I could go into detail about the need to train not only technicians and craftsmen, but semiskilled workers in shops, offices and cafes. One reason why Britain is in an industrial decline is the lowering of work standards, due partly to failure of training. Employers have not felt bound to train people to work effectively at all levels. It is possible for a person to find a job or for a firm to make a profit without effective training. We have all had bad service in shops and cafes and difficulties in dealing with office clerks, not because they are unintelligent or do not want to provide the service, but because they do not know how.
  Mr. Dan Jones: We cannot compare training in science and engineering with alleged training in cafes.
  Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend may have been a craftsman. My dad was a cook. It is as important to be trained in the art of cooking and serving as it is in the art of turning and milling. I acknowledge to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that it is as important to be trained to grow carrots as it is to repair machinery.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman does the House a great service. We regard the catering trade and service industries too lightly. Anything that we can do to improve their status is welcome.
  Mr. Golding: Training is not only a question of meeting industry's needs. It also serves the personal needs of individuals. We have not fully developed individual potential. We tend to concentrate on educating and training a small number of people at a relatively young age. We have not done as much as other countries to develop the full potential of individuals throughout their lives. We need a training system to enable people to work to their full potential.
  Training is important for status, personal satisfaction and economic efficiency. The Government have isolated a small area of training as important and are in danger of not facilitating other training.
  Mr. John Townend: I share the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-West (Mr. Taylor). He has put his finger on the point. Businesses cannot be successful without adequately trained workers.
  I declare an interest. I have experience of training boards through my companies. I know three of the quangos—those involved in hotels and catering and food, drink and tobacco and the distributive training board.
  We are all in favour of training, but what is the most cost-effective method? I oppose the new clause because it applies indiscriminately to all training boards. In practice it would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers and wind up any of the industrial training boards.
  That might be right and proper in a high technology industry such as the engineering industry, where it could be argued that an industry organisation was necessary not only for the industry but in the national interest. We cannot generalise, however. We have to deal with the industries

  329
  individually. What about those industries in which there are good arguments for abolishing the training boards and leaving training not to some new voluntary body but to individual firms?
  My experience is that the three training boards that I have mentioned could well be axed. The distributive board deals with the retail trade. The British retail trade is one of our most successful industries and compares with the best in the world. Marks and Spencer, having conquered the retail sector in this country, is now making great strides in France and moving into the new world. Sainsbury's is one of our leading companies, as are Harrods and Asda, to name but a few. Those firms will train within their own organisations If there is any decline in training, I believe that it will be only in those firms that will not succeed and will go out of business or among smaller firms.
  I cannot understand the Opposition's attitude to what they describe as "poaching". I should have thought that they would welcome skilled salaried and manual workers being given the opportunity to improve their standard of life by accepting jobs at higher rates of pay. I see no problem at all in that.
  If any businesses suffer, it will be the larger firms. If any benefit, it will be the smaller firms. But that is surely more than counterbalanced by the massive discounts that the large companies obtain through bulk buying as compared with the small firms. If there is one area in which the small firm has some small advantage, so be it.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point about poaching. It is not so much that we begrudge a person the right to use his skills and to sell them where best he can. We are worried that if poaching becomes prevalent the number of companies choosing to undertake no training at all will greatly increase.
  To cite an example, in my beloved county of Cornwall there is no need to train anybody to do anything throughout the entire county. One has only to put an advertisement in the newspaper and hordes of people try to get down to Cornwall to carry out the job and sell the skills that they have accumulated elsewhere. That is pretty bad news for all the youngsters in Cornwall who cannot look forward to any training.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Townend: I cannot believe that, for example, all the catering establishments in Cornwall have top class chefs and top class food.
  It is argued that training must be done on an industry basis. I cite the examples of two industries in which we dominate world competition—banking and insurance. Although professional bodies exist, training of computer and other staff is carried out by the individual banks and insurance companies.
  The hotel industry is a classic case in which training is essential. But what kind of training do we need? In my own medium-sized hotel we pay a fairly substantial amount to the training board every year, which helps to subsidise the larger companies. We do very badly out of it, although we train. The managing director, who is a practical cook himself, undertakes training in the kitchen but cannot be bothered to keep records.
  The same applies in my wine business. When the training started and the inspector came round, he asked what training we did. We explained that every month we
  330
  had our managers in, gave them a tasting and explained about the various wines. He said that that was marvellous and asked to see the individual records of the managers. When I asked what he meant, he explained that after a tasting a card must be made out for each manager, recording the date, the time, the fact that the wine had been tasted and the cost. I replied that if I costed it I should probably never do it again.
  One therefore cannot generalise about training. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding)—in his, as always, poignant remarks—said that the quality of our work force had been declining over the 15 years during which industrial training boards had existed. I should have thought that that was a good argument against their continuation.
  The great failure of the training boards is surely in the apprenticeship system, in which there has been no reform. The real problem is not that we do not have training boards or that we are not spending enough money. We have simply got the wage rate for apprentices wrong, so that they have priced themselves out of the market.
  I know that time is short. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend not to listen either to the apparently persuasive arguments from some of his hon. Friends or to the blandishments of the Opposition. I urge the Government to throw out the new clause.
  Mr. Harold Walker: We have had a useful debate on an important proposal which I believe goes to the heart of some of the differences between the two sides of the House. We have now been debating it for nearly two hours and, unhappily, the hopes of many of us of finishing our business at a reasonable hour are fast receding.
  I wish to state briefly the position of the Opposition Front Bench in this matter. In Committee we were pressed hard to table a clause similar to this, but declined to do so. When the clause was put on the Amendment Paper we were pressed to attach the names of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but again we declined. We did so because we felt that this matter should come before the House on Report to be debated by the whole House and that we might not have had that opportunity had we dealt with the matter in Committee.
  Secondly, and much more importantly, we have no intention of retreating from the firm commitment that we have given to and our strong support for the existing statutory system as the basis for our training arrangements. We have made it clear that we share and support the view expressed in "Outlook on Training", the review of the Employment and Training Act, particularly in chapter 8, paragraph 7, which states:
  "Radical changes in the existing structure would involve massive disruption. Any new bodies would take time to win credibility and influence. There would inevitably be teething problems and mistakes due to inexperience. Alternative structures would have to have clear advantages indeed to justify risking a major hiatus in training effort in a decade in which training will be of great importance. We have not been convinced of the reality of those advantages: nor, it is clear, have the great majority of those who submitted evidence to us. We accept—indeed we emphasise—that a better approach to local and cross-sector needs can and must be devised. But we consider that the existing statutory framework, within which the MSC can work in collaboration with industry training bodies, can be developed and adapted to meet these needs".
  The review concludes:
  "We therefore favour building on existing foundations."
  That has been our position and we do not resile from it. New clauses 3 and 4 do not do that either. They seem, in

  331
  fact, to provide a blocking mechanism to prevent boards that are abolished from providing the opportunity for a lapse into voluntarism.
  In view of what I have said about the time, I wish at this hour to avoid becoming over-involved yet again in a philosophical discussion about voluntarism and the statutory system. Nevertheless, I cannot resist drawing the attention of the House to a page in the May issue of the journal of the British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education, which provides chapter and verse, and quotations, for the horrors, weaknesses and failings of the voluntary system over many years right up to the 1964 Act. They are all set out there, so I shall not take up the time of the House in citing examples, except just to give the flavour.
  It starts with a preamble referring to arguments which have been and are continuing to be advanced by the protagonists in what it calls
  "the present ten-yearly ritual of pulling up the plant to see why it is not conforming to the description in the seed catalogue".
  It goes on to say that that shows a distressing lack of originality. It lists many of the statements made by Ministers, mainly Conservative Ministers, and by other people who have been professionally involved in one way or the other with industrial training over many years. It illustrates the pitfalls of the system that we hoped the 1964 Act had put behind us.
  Since our early debates on the question our view has received further reinforcement from the Manpower Services Commission. We all know the composition of the commission and the tremendous amount of professional and disinterested expertise on which it can draw. It has published a further consultation document entitled "A New Training Initiative", which says in paragraph 36 on page 6:
  "There are three major questions to be resolved: who should bear the costs, what organisation is required; and by what means should we seek to make progress? There are no simple and obvious answers to any of these questions but three things are clear. First, there will have to be a significant increase in the resources devoted—whether by Government, industry or both—to training … Secondly, we must look to develop or reinforce institutional arrangements which are robust and effective, and in which all partners in industry can have confidence. We need machinery, for example, to set and monitor appropriate standards of skill achievement; to promote training practices which will ensure that high standards of skill are achieved; and to help the work force to adapt to changing demand".
  I very much doubt whether the voluntary arrangements of which the Government are so enamoured will meet those targets. The document then says:
  "Thirdly, we must have the statutory underpinning which is essential to ensure that adequate resources and machinery are available".
  Then in paragraph 44 it says:
  "With the Manpower Services Commission we already have a statutory framework which provides for the establishment of Industry Training Boards; and there are a number of industries where non-statutory organisations do much to stimulate training provision. What we have now to decide is how to use this framework of statutory and voluntary approaches to maximum effect".
  That reinforces our view that the existing institutional arrangements and statutory framework are right. It is a view that is shared by the MSC and by the review body that produced "Outlook on Training", and we do not resile from it now.
  332
  I was delighted to see that the Secretaries of State had welcomed the consultation document entitled "A New Training Initiative", but what caused me some qualified anxiety was that the Secretaries of State, led by the Secretary of State for Employment, said that they would consider with the MSC what could be done within the available resources to advance the objectives.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me that I am wrong in assuming that the reference to available resources means the present resources, which he has already slashed again and again. In the MSC's corporate plan it was made quite clear that the cuts that he had imposed so far would reduce public expenditure on training by a further £77½ million by 1984. I still have not yet heard, despite the number of times on which I have put the question, whether that £77½ million includes, or is additional to, the £50 million that is being withdrawn from the boards by the Bill. Is the figure £77½ million, or £127½ million? We still do not know the answer.
  It seemed all the more incredible that on the same day the Secretary of State could put out a press notice saying:
  "Investing in people is as important to the future of this country as investing in new plant and machinery".
  I hope that we would all say "Hear, hear" to that. The Secretary of State went on to say that we do not do enough of either. We do not get enough investment in people or in new plant and machinery. But he is the one who is cutting back the investment for all he is worth.
  Mr. Prior: That does not mean to say that it all has to be Government investment. We also go on to say that industry has a part to play.
  Mr. Walker: The Secretary of State is ruining the very instrument by means of which he can ensure that industry is able to play its part. He is not only withdrawing the money, he is withdrawing the instrument. What have we been debating for the last two hours? The right hon. Gentleman should have taken out his earplugs. This is what the debate has been about.
  The Secretary of State, in the same notice, went on to say:
  "Training is simply not given sufficient priority in Britain".
  but he is the one who is ensuring that its priority is being diminished. The press notice continued:
  "Like other investment, it requires sacrifice now in return for future gains".
  That is marvellous stuff. That is the sort of thing that I could say with real pleasure, but it is the Secretary of State who is cutting back on public expenditure, cutting back on training, and removing all the disciplines, sanctions and coercions on industry to do precisely what he says needs to be done. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that
  "the pay-off is rarely immediate, and individuals' and companies' perspectives tend to be short".
  That is what we have been saying. Of course industry will stick to the short-term advantage in the present circumstances. Who can blame industry for doing that when it is reeling from the impact of Government policy after Government policy, and when it has its back to the wall? Of course it will cut back on research, investment and training. Of course it will regard those things as overheads, and chop and prune in the hope that sooner or later times will change. But the damage will have been done by then, and the damage will be irreparable. This is the very time when the Secretary of State needs the power to make industry fulfil the long-term objectives to which he looks forward.

  333
  I found it even more incredible that the Under-Secretary of State, who added so much to our debates in Standing Committee, should have said, only on 3 June, during a visit to the construction industry centre at Bircham Newton, that there was no doubt that over the years many industry training boards had made a major contribution. Is this double-talk, double-cross or just muddle? Perhaps it is a combination of all those things. Ministers are saying one thing in the House of Commons and saying entirely contradictory things up and down the country. I do not know whether they are trying to con people, but they are putting themselves into an absurd position, and it is an absurdity that they are seeking to inflict on the House.
  If there was one statement in the course of the last week from professionals in the training industry that riveted me it was the statement from the chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board. He is not a person with a vested interest, and he is not lacking in knowledge of the engineering industry. He said that apparently this year's intake of engineering apprentices would be down to 12,000. We all know that the usual annual intake can be measured in the twenties of thousands. This year it is estimated that we need 20,000 apprentices, but we shall have only a little over half the necessary intake.
  Ministers may say that that is a condemnation of the existing arrangements. They may say that that shows the weakness of the existing arrangement and the need for an entirely different approach. Given the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the bleak forecast for the supply of skilled manpower in the engineering industry, the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that he will abolish the Engineering Industry Training Board. He should leave the engineering industry to satisfy its manpower needs by voluntary arrangements. That is the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman should say that the EITB has failed and that the industry should rely on voluntary arrangements for its skilled engineering needs.
  8.30 pm
  I lay a £5 wage with any hon. Member who is willing to take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do no such thing. He knows that if the engineering industry can reach only half of its targets with the EITB, it will meet only a fraction of its targets without it. The EITB and the other boards should be given the Government support that they need and the financial assistance that they need in present-day circumstances. We should revert to the original principles of the 1964 Act—the carrot and stick principles—and apply them with a vigour that has never been seen before. That is vital.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that where training needs are not being met by statutory arrangements, voluntary arrangements might be better. If that is so, he should abolish the EITB as soon as he has the power to do so. As yet, I have had no takers for my wager. The wager will be open all evening. I wager £5 that the EITB survives. I have spoken for longer than I had intended to do. The new clause is essentially a blocking mechanism and a line of defence, which will prevent the worst when the Secretary of State has the power to implement his plans.
  I hope that it will not be thought that we are resiling from our commitment to the statutory arrangements. However, having regard to the argument put forward in support of the new clause, and given that although it is a
  334
  bad second best it may still provide some form of defence, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House and to support the new clause in the Lobby.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, the two new clauses are the nub of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also holds that belief. As those who served on the Committee will know, the question is whether voluntarism can work or whether one must follow a statutory route.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) rightly pointed out, a voluntary approach works in some industries. He cited the example of banks and insurance companies. If the success of training is judged by the success of the industries concerned, it would seem that training in those industries has been successful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) understandably asked whether my right hon. Friend and I took training seriously. Of course the answer is "Yes". There can be no question about that. We would not be considering training boards, we would not have involved ourselves in such a Bill and my right hon. Friend would not have given his name to the new training initiative if we were not seriously concerned about the future of training.
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster quoted back at me something that I said last week at the CITB at Bircham Newton. I paid tribute to that board. However, I pay tribute to all statutory boards and particularly to their employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) was at pains to point out the successful approach that they had—I emphasise "had"—taken in the past. I accept that that is so.
  In certain sectors it has been possible to turn the industries round so that they point in the direction that will lead to better training. To suggest that if a sector takes the voluntary route it will mean a return to pre-1964 is to prejudge the review of the MSC and the points of view on voluntary arrangements that will be put forward by the industries concerned.
  I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He said that the nation dramatically lacked skills. He may not have meant that in that way, but if it is so it does not say as much for the training boards as some Opposition Members would have us believe. The hon. Gentleman and I are working on the same lines. We wish to ensure that there is as flexible an approach as possible to training. If there is a potential skill shortage, it can then be quickly plugged.
  In my postbag I often get complaints to the effect that industrial training boards tend to be too bureaucratic. The hon. Gentleman made that point and said that there were too many of them. He said—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—that there was something to be said for voluntarism.
  The hon. Gentleman and I would not disagree on any of those points. Where we would disagree is on his new clause and that tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), which is on similar lines. If we were to accept either new clause, when my right hon. Friend came to decide whether a statutory training board should be retained he would be bound and gagged and it would be impossible for him to make a decision about the abolition of a given board.

  335
  The hon. Member for Heeley maintained that in the review of the Employment and Training Act there was no recommendation for us to consider each training board. I refer him to recommendation 16, which says:
  "The Manpower Services Commission should undertake an examination of the scope of existing ITBs, and the boundary between industries in scope and those not in scope to Boards. This should be done in full consultation with both sides of industry."
  That recommendation means that there should be a further review what the boards were doing, on a sector-by-sector basis.
  As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said—he was honest in his approach—if we were to accept either new clause we should be gagged and bound. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) said, and it is true.
  It would be wrong to attempt a single blueprint for all the industries, which the new clauses attempt to do, of which boards may be abolished or which industries may be removed from the scope of boards. Before we have the MSC sector-by-sector review it is difficult to know for certain, but it seems possible that in some sectors training arrangements could exist without a national organisation. That might be so where the bulk of training was done by a few large firms, which could be relied upon to plan and provide enough training of high quality without supervision.
  That would not satisfy the criteria laid out in the new clauses. It seems likely that some industries that have been brought together under a board would want to organise themselves separately under a voluntary regime. Thus, there might be several voluntary organisations, each providing adequate training, where once there was one board. That would not satisfy the requirements of the new clauses.
  To take another example, it seems possible that a voluntary organisation could make use of commercial or educational facilities to provide professional training expertise or to set and certify qualifications. That would not satisfy the criteria in the new clauses.
  I could give many different examples, but the Government believe, prima facie—the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland is correct—that a voluntary organisation can be just as good as a statutory board. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. I quoted the banks and the insurance companies. We shall see what programmes the different sectors of industry produce if they wish to go voluntary.
  In the light of the review my right hon. Friend will be able to judge what a voluntary organisation will be like and he can take decisions as a result. If we were to accept either new clause he could not take those decisions as freely and easily as he can now. As I said before, he would be bound and gagged. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the new clauses.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I am disappointed with that reply and I shall force the new clause to a Division. What the Minister has said is not true. The Secretary of State would not be bound and gagged if the House accepted new clause 3, and the Minister has not said that he will produce something similar in another place. We have not had one iota of progress on this subject.
  336
  We are seeking an assurance that the new set-up, whatever it is it will not be less effective in providing training than the previous system. That assurance has not been given. I am thereofore delighted that so many hon. Members will vote for the new clause, and I hope that those Conservative Members who have added their names to it will vote with us as well.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 231.

  Division No. 213]

  [8.40 pm

  AYES

  Allaun, Frank

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Anderson, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Homewood, William

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hooley, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Huckfield, Les

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Campbell, Ian

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kerr, Russell

  Coleman, Donald

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lamond, James

  Cook, Robin F.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cowans, Harry

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cryer, Bob

  Litherland, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  McCartney, Hugh

  Davidson, Arthur

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McKelvey, William

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

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Deakins, Eric

  McNally, Thomas

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dempsey, James

  Magee, Bryan

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Dixon, Donald

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dormand, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Douglas, Dick

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Maxton, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  English, Michael

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ewing, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Fitch, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Flannery, Martin

  Morton, George

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ford, Ben

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Forrester, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Foster, Derek

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Palmer, Arthur

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Parry, Robert

  Golding, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Gourlay, Harry

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Graham, Ted

  Prescott, John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  337

  Rooker, J. W.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Wainwright, E (Dearne V)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Welsh, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  White, Frank R.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitlock, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Snape, Peter

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

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Stoddart, David

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Woodall, Alec

  Strang, Gavin

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Dr R (Carmarthen)

  Mr. David Penhaligon and

  Tilley, John

  Mr. Tom Bradley.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ancram, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Tom

  Elliott, Sir William

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Farr, John

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fell, Anthony

  Best, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Blackburn, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Body, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Boscawen, Hen Robert

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brittan, Leon

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Gorst, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Greenway, Harry

  Buck, Antony

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

  Budgen, Nick

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grist, Ian

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Barney

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

  Henderson, Barry

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

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

  Hooson, Tom

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  338

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Latham, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rost, Peter

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shelton, William (Strtmtham)

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Silvester, Fred

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

  Sims, Roger

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Major, John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mather, Carol

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stevens, Martin

  Mawby, Ray

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stokes, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mellor, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moore, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Myles, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Waddington, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wakeham, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Newton, Tony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Normanton, Tom

  Wall, Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Osborn, John

  Ward, John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Wells, Bowen

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Whitney, Raymond

  Parris, Matthew

  Wickenden, Keith

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Wolfson, Mark

  Porter, Barry

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Mr. John Cope and

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

  Renton, Tim

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ORDERS
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
  '(4) If an order made under subsection (2) of this section has the effect of winding up an industrial training board the Minister shall, not more than twelve months after the order takes effect, and at annual intervals thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report of the training arrangements in the industry and the report shall contain information in particular about

  339

  (a) the arrangements for monitoring skill shortages and other training needs, and the action being taken to alleviate them,

  (b) the devising, and keeping up-to-date, and the publicising of training standards appropriate to the industry,

  (c) the extent to which trade unions and educational institutions are involved in the industry's training arrangements.'.

  I am sure that, when he saw the amendment, the Under-Secretary of State instantly recognised the words. They are culled from the press notice giving details of what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), said on 13 April when he spoke in Plymouth:
  "we are not going to let companies off the hook of statutory boards to slip back into inefficient training, skill shortages and poaching. We want to capitalise on the successes of the statutory boards—not waste them. Any voluntary arrangements would have to be adequate to meet essential training needs".I hope that hon. Members are looking at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment, because the Under-Secretary of State went on to say:
  "These would include: monitoring skill shortages and other training needs, and arranging voluntary action to alleviate them; devising, and keeping up to date and publicising training standards appropriate to the industry; working as appropriate with trade unions and educational institutions."
  All that we are asking the Under-Secretary of State to do today is put his words on the statute book.
  It is eminently sensible that Parliament should continue to have an oversight of the effect of winding up an industrial training board, with particular regard to those factors properly identified by the Under-Secretary of State. If boards are to be abolished, because the Government are convinced that the alternative voluntary arrangements will meet the manpower needs of the industries concerned, unless there are monitoring arrangements and reports to provide essential information we shall be unable to judge whether the Government have been wise or unwise in abolishing those boards, and whether it is necessary to take urgent statutory action to re-establish them.
  What the Under-Secretary of State said at Plymouth was sensible and he should underpin it by statutory action. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I hate to disappoint anyone. Although no speech of mine gave birth to this amendment, I heartily applaud the choice of language of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Memberfor City of Chester (Mr. Morrison). Certainly the amendment covers some of the most important objectives of voluntary training arrangements and goes on to require that an annual report about them shall be published.
  I readily accept that it is right that the Government should take a close interest, initially at least, in the voluntary arrangements that may replace statutory training boards. At the same time, it is inappropriate, on several grounds, to impose a statutory obligation on my Department to publish a report about them each year. Initially we would expect the MSC' s annual report, which my right hon. Friend has a statutory duty to lay before Parliament, to contain information about the commission's relations with new voluntary training bodies which may be developed in place of industrial training boards. The
  340
  annual report has regularly given information of this kind about voluntary bodies outside the ITB field. When the new voluntary bodies settle down, one would expect the MSC not to have to take such a substantial interest in them, and I would not expect that reports about them would continue to be necessary.
  I should also remind the House that it has always been envisaged that in some areas we may finish up without any collective institution. Where most of the training is done by a few big firms, arrangements could well be left in their hands, with satisfactory results. In those circumstances, the amendment would imply requiring individual companies to provide information on a regular basis; this the Government most certainly would wish to avoid.
  Finally, it would be inappropriate to lay a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to make an annual report on matters that were not within his direct responsibility. That sounds slightly technical, but strictly it is correct. I invite the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Eastham: I am disappointed with the comments of the Under-Secretary of State, who will recall that in Committee I raised this matter and asked about monitoring. He replied then that there was merit in the idea of some monitoring, although nothing had been firmed up. All parties acknowledge that Governments have consistently made mistakes. That was the reason for the legislation in 1964. What we are trying to do is protect the future, not just of individual industries, but of the nation, if we are to have any industry at all.
  We have all been bombarded with numerous pieces of literature from various quarters and interests. We also pick up some information from reading odd publications. Only recently I read in a building trade journal published in April a long article entitled "Training for survival". I shall not bore the House with full details of it, but one passage is worth recording:
  "As I am sure you appreciate, training has, like the nation, reached its crossroads and it is vital at this time of uncertainty that we take the right road.
  You do not need me to remind you that industry is vast and complex; that its workload is largely unstable and cyclical and highly sensitive to changes in Government economic policies; that there is great diversity both in size and type of firms, a large number of whom do little if any training.
  That all underlines the need for someone to see into the future and to help industry through the various phases of boom and recession".
  This was submitted not by trade unionists, but by professionals, who, I presume, would often support the Government. We are seeing the realisation by intelligent people that proper provision has to be made. This is why we cannot now have a situation like that prior to 1964, where we will be faced with a time lag. If we start to fail now, it will not show immediately. When apprenticeships and training are involved, it takes a number of years to show up. There will be a gradual decline.
  9 pm
  For those reasons, we need monitoring, and a report, so that we may have advance warning. We should not leave it until the death, when we suddenly find ourselves in a terrible mess. Input is needed from industry, and also from education and the various employment agencies. Industry is an ever-changing business, and, in view of all the new developments and technologies, one has a right to ask what provision is to be made. The Under-Secretary said that there would be no interference and that the Government were not asking for reports. How will we get

  341
  the information? Who do we turn to? Who will make the provisions? How will the Government know which needs are to be provided or should be provided?
  I should al so like a breakdown into groups, by age and sex. It would not be a bad idea to know about training for the disabled. Disabled people are able to carry out many intricate jobs. This is the International Year of Disabled People, yet there is no mention of using the skills of many of these people who, although physically incapacitated, can perform useful jobs. We need positive information and an opportunity to debate some of these issues on the Floor of the House.
  If industry lets us down, as it has done in the past, and as I am sure it will do in the future, it will not be industry that pays, but the nation.
  Mr. Waddington: I fear that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) may not have heard all that I said. I was at pains to say that, in its annual reports, the MSC regularly gives information about voluntary bodies, and there is no reason why that should not continue. So, although the hon. Member says that there is no provision for monitoring, some monitoring will no doubt continue.
  I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in the matter and I apologise for having risen to my feet so quickly. Obviously, the after-effects of a late night prevented me from seeing that he wanted to intervene. I realise that he is the author of new clause 5, which has not been selected. However, had it been selected and debated, I should have had to point out that it would place an intolerable burden on firms to supply statistics which at the moment are not available to the Government. We already receive plenty of complaints in our Department about the gathering of statistics from companies, and the resultant burden on companies.
  We must strike a balance. I believe that the present arrangement is proper and should continue when voluntary bodics come into existence. However, I repeat that, in the initial stages, the Government should take a close interest in the voluntary arrangements that are to replace statutory training boards.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I am astonished by the Minister's reply. He began by warmly endorsing the Under-Secretary of State's speech at Plymouth but went on to say that the Government rejected any proposals to ensure that actions that the Government believe to be desirable are taken.
  Mr. Craigen: Is it not significant that it was the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) rather than the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) who replied to the debate?
  Mr. Walker: I thought that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) must be feeling the pangs of hunger or the need for refreshment, but perhaps that was too simple an interpretation. Perhaps he is not here because he does not want to face the inevitable consequences of what he said. When a Minister makes a speech in public, it is regarded as a statement of Government policy.
  I had hoped that the Government would say that even if they were not prepared to accept our amendment alternatives would be put to the House to implement the suggestions made at Plymouth. All we have heard is that the MSC report contains references to monitoring
  342
  arrangements in the voluntary sector. However, that does not go as far as the Under-Secretary went in his speech at Plymouth. We ask the Government to live up to their words. Ministers should not make speeches and then come to the House, turn their backs on them and assume that hon. Members will not have read them. We are entitled to know what the Government intend to do to implement their Plymouth proposals. I hope that the Minister will tell the MSC that its annual report must vindicate the words chosen by the hon. Member for City of Chester at Plymouth.
  Big companies are required by law to provide certain information for shareholders. I cannot understand why they should not have a similar obligation to provide information about their training performance. That is just as important to the company, the industry of which it is a part and the nation. The arrangements for meeting manpower needs are as important as many other aspects of a company's business.
  We shall return to the issue. In view of the time, I shall not divide the House. However, I hope that the Government will reflect upon our remarks and ensure that they live up to the words uttered in ministerial statements and which have appeared in departmental press notices. Alternatively, I hope that they will be more cautious about how they goad the public.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVIES
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
  '(1A) For subsection (2A)(d)(i) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1964 there shall be substituted:

  "(i) does not exceed an amount which the Minister estimates is equal to 3 per cent. of the aggregate of the emoluments and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are paid and payable, by that employer to or in respect of persons employed in the industry, in respect of the period specified in the proposals as the period which is relevant for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, or".'.

  I shall try to be brief, because we are on familiar ground. Reference was made to the issue on Second Reading and in Committee. However, the amendment uses a different formula to produce a similar result.
  We are acting in accordance with the MSC review "Outlook on Training". That made it clear that severing the link between the Government and the board's operating costs—which is a return to the 1954 Act provisions—should be accompanied by the removal of the statutory ceiling on levy.
  If the Government want to behave consistently—at least in that one respect—with "Outlook on Training", they should withdraw the ceiling on the levy. We say that not only because the review body recommended it and we think it right—we supported the severing of the link between the Government and the funding of operating costs—but because if the 1964 Act has not fulfilled all the hopes pinned on it—and I doubt that it has, because some may have been pitched too high—it is because we did not apply the carrot and stick principle with sufficient rigour and vigour.
  Perhaps the penalties for an employer who does not fulfil his training obligations should have been heavier.

  343
  That would have provided the resources for the boards to make more generous grants. That was one of the provisions of the 1964 Act. I have always said that if a firm fulfils or goes beyond its reasonable training obligations, and if the levy grant system is sufficiently generous to reward that firm, that should be done. No harm would be caused by doing so. Perhaps it is because we did not apply sufficiently heavy levies and sufficiently rewarding grants that the Act was not as successful as we had hoped it would be.
  Another difficulty arises from the need of the boards to have a level of levy that is adequate to ensure not only that the necessary training arrangements are carried out and that they employ the necessary staff to do so, but that they can meet that part of their costs which during past years has been supplied by Government. I refer to the additional levy to meet operating costs.
  Having regard to all that Ministers have said about the importance of training and the importance of freedom in such matters, we should return to the boards the discretion that they formerly held under the 1964 Act. That is the purpose of the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: We discussed in Committee, at great length and for good reasons, the question of operating costs. The Government made their view clear. The power of boards to raise a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments should be exercised only if there is an affirmative resolution. I shall come to the question of operating costs later.
  As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) knows, 1 per cent. is not the absolute ceiling. It is the figure at which a different level of parliamentary control comes into operation. We believe that that is right, and we are not persuaded that there is a need to raise the ceiling for example to the 3 per cent. suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ready in principle to approve proposals above 1 per cent. and to seek appropriate resolution, provided that he is convinced that there is a good reason to do so. As the House and the right hon. Gentleman will know, only one board has operated a levy of more than 1 per cent. of payroll since the 1973 Act came into force. The majority of boards operate levies significantly below that ceiling.
  That does not necessarily suggest that the 1 per cent. ceiling has been a great constraint on boards. I am aware that some boards are worried about needing a higher rate of levy to meet operating costs, but I am not convinced that that would be necessary to any significant extent.
  As the House knows, we have made some provision for operating costs. Boards will be allowed to raise up to a 0·2 per cent. levy on a non-exemptible basis, without going through the consensus. That figure was set with operating costs in mind. Many boards have sufficient leeway in their present levy rates to make whatever adjustments are needed without going above 1 per cent. To change to the 3 per cent. suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would not be right. I advise the House to resist the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided, Ayes 170, Noes 232.

  Division No. 214]

  [9.14 pm

  AYES

  Allaun, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  344

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kerr, Russell

  Bradley, Tom

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Leighton, Ronald

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Buchan, Norman

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Campbell, Ian

  Litherland, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Carmichael, Neil

  McCartney, Hugh

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McKelvey, William

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

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Cohen, Stanley

  Maclennan, Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  McNally, Thomas

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Magee, Bryan

  Cook, Robin F.

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Cowans, Harry

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Maxton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Davidson, Arthur

  Meacher, Michael

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Deakins, Eric

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Dempsey, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dewar, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Dixon, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dormand, Jack

  Morton, George

  Douglas, Dick

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Dunn, James A.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Newens, Stanley

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Parry, Robert

  English, Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Penhaligon, David

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ewing, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Fitch, Alan

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Richardson, Jo

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Ford, Ben

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Forrester, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Foster, Derek

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Foulkes, George

  Sheerman, Barry

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  George, Bruce

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Golding, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Gourlay, Harry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Graham, Ted

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

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

  Stoddart, David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Strang, Gavin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

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

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Home Robertson, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Homewood, William

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Hooley, Frank

  Tilley, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Huckfield, Les

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Welsh, Michael

  John, Brynmor

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Whitlock, William

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

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

  345

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

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

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Frank R. White and

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Ancram, Michael

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Arnold, Tom

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Gorst, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Greenway, Harry

  Best, Keith

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grist, Ian

  Blackburn, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Henderson, Barry

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hicks, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brittan, Leon

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Hooson, Tom

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Buck, Antony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

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

  Knox, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lamont, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lang, Ian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Colvin, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Cope, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Corrie, John

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Critchley, Julian

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Crouch, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  MacGregor, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Durant, Tony

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Eggar, Tim

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Elliott, Sir William

  Madel, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Major, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Marlow, Tony

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Farr, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fell, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Mellor, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Moate, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  346

  Moore, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Sims, Roger

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mudd, David

  Speed, Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Myles, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Neale, Gerrard

  Squire, Robin

  Needham, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steen, Anthony

  Neubert, Michael

  Stevens, Martin

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stokes, John

  Osborn, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Parris, Matthew

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Donald

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pollock, Alexander

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, Barry

  Trippier, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Viggers, Peter

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Waddington, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wakeham, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wall, Patrick

  Renton, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rost, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

  EXEMPTION FROM LEVIES
  Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 11, at end insert
  '; and the proposals may specify different criteria as respects arrangements made by different categories of employers'.
  The amendment will find ready support on both sides of the House. The 1964 Act specificially allows boards to make different provisions for different categories of employer in the case of levy proposals. There is no specific provision enabling the differential to be made in the case of proposals relating to exemption criteria. At present there is an implied power for boards to make different provisions in the case of exemption criteria, because the exemption criteria relate to the needs of the establishment. The Bill changes that so that the exemption criteria will relate to the needs of the industry. It is, therefore, desired to make a specific provision allowing for differentials between employers in the case of exemption criteria.
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister seeks to ensure that boards continue to be able to make different proposals relating to exemption criteria in respect of different categories of employers. Although we agree with that, we

  347
  are a little suspicious. Can the Minister assure us that he is not subject to pressure and is not going back on the line that he took in Committee? One can envisage Ministers being concerned with matters other than the adequacy of training in firms or the industry as a whole when issuing guidance on criteria. They may be lobbied by firms anxious to avoid the levy and their responsibilities.
  Mr. Waddington: I give that assurance. The amendment has been introduced because boards already have different exemption criteria for different classes of employers. The amendment ensures that the practice continues to be legal. I shall not take up time by giving examples of where that happens now. Without the amendment, what happens now would not remain legal.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 20, leave out from first 'the' to second `of' in line 26 and insert
  'relevant emoluments within the meaning'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
  Mr. Morrison: The amendment will enable a consensus to a non-exemptible levy above 0·2 per cent. to last for one additional levy order after that originally supported by the consensus, provided that the second order is made within two years of the first and provided also that the non-exemptible part of the levy is at a level no higher than that on which the consensus was originally obtained. The requirement that evidence of consensus must be provided is retained in the case of the first set of levy proposals.
  Under the Bill as amended in Committee, an industrial training board can impose a non-exemptible levy of up to 0·2 per cent. of emoluments, without any special procedure, but either a consensus of employers or an affirmative resolution is required on each occasion in order to give effect to proposals for a non-exemptible levy of over 0·2 per cent.
  In Committee an amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). It would have had the effect of the non-exemptible levy of up to 0·2 per cent. lasting for three years. We discussed the matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend now accepts that it should last for two years.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: Here again we have just the slightest suspicion that the Minister is abandoning his previous strong stance. He may wish to give assurances that he is not giving way to pressures. I may be right in thinking that what he is offering is a tiny increase in a board's power to carry forward a non-exemptible levy arrived at by consensus.
  If that is the case, I suppose that we could call this a classic case of modified rapture. It is one small step in the right direction, at any rate for some of the boards. I would welcome assurances on the lines that I have suggested.
  Mr. Morrison: I never expected to hear the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) talk about modified
  348
  rapture. I assure him that the steps that we are taking are those that he so articulately outlined. I do not think that he need have any fears on the matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'that aggregate' and insert
  'the relevent emoluments within the meaning of section 4(2A) of this Act'.—[Mr. Morrison.]
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 5, leave out lines 31 and 32.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 22, in page 5, line 40, leave out 'either—(i)'.
  No. 23, in page 6, line 1, leave out paragraph (ii).
  Mr. Shersby: In moving the amendment I declare an outside interest that is relevant to the remarks that I shall make. I am an unpaid member of the Food and Drink Industries Council and also director-general of the British Sugar Bureau, which is a member of that council.
  The purpose of the amendments is to probe the Government's intentions in connection with levy money paid to training boards even if the levy payable by the employer will not exceed 0·2 per cent. of the payroll where the training standards laid down are met.
  I say at the outset that I welcome, as does the Food and Drink Industries Council, the 0·2 per cent. limit placed upon the open-ended liability in the Bill as originally drafted. When the Bill was first published, employers whose own training arrangements were acceptable could be levied for the cost of training of persons employed or to be employed in the industry. It is therefore fair to ask my hon. Friend what it is intended should be done with the levy from those employers who are otherwise exempt. We should like to hear a little about that aspect of the matter.
  I turn to the special problems of the food and drink industry, which comes under the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board. As my hon. Friend knows, it is the general view of the Food and Drink Industries Council that that training board should be abolished. I entirely agree with that view, because the member associations of the council—the brewers, the bakers, the ice cream manufacturers, the sugar industry, to name but a few—consider that their own in-sector training arrangements are such that the Secretary of State would see no objection to their being removed from the scope of the board.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that unless satisfactory alternative arrangements exist he will not agree to the board being abolished. I hope that the facts of the matter will impress him. They are that 94 per cent. of all food and drink companies are already granted exemption from levy. That is a very substantial number of employees: 789,788 employees in the industry are in that category where full levy exemption is applied. Indeed, others are entitled to partial levy exemption.
  Therefore, since the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board covers not only tobacco but such businesses as florists and horticulture, over which an organisation such as the Food and Drink Industries Council has no possible influence, there could be some minor problems, because they do not come within the figures that I have quoted. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the figures are truly impressive.

  349
  The concept that the Manpower Services Commission and the Minister can, at their discretion, act to the disadvantage of employers if they are of the opinion that it is necessary to do so,
  "to encourage adequate training in the industry"
  could be a real difficulty for the industry on whose behalf I speak this evening. Instances of this concept occur in clauses 3(4) and 3(5), and it is these that I suggest in my amendment should be deleted from the Bill. Surely the Bill, in providing for exemption from the levies, should do so on the basis that exemption certificates should be issued to exempt from levy employers in the industry
  "who make arrangements for training or the training and further education associated with training of persons employed by them in the industry."
  I stress the words "by them".
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to make industrial training boards work, and to secure the support of industry for a system of exemption from levies, is to make it crystal clear that good employers who make proper arrangements for training in their own firms are exempt from levies? Surely that should be the basis of getting the kind of co-operation from industry which industry is very willing to give.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will lend a sympathetic ear to the amendments. Not only will they provide for the exemption from levy of those firms that provide good training facilities; they will make it clear that the unnecessary burden of good firms having to pay for training in bad firms is removed.
  There are other ways of persuading employers whose training facilities are inadequate to make them adequate than by loading good employers with the responsibility for this particular operation. I shall mention a few ideas which help to reinforce this view, because I can see Labour Members looking askance at the concept that I have advocated.
  The first priority, certainly in relation to the food and drink industry, is the abolition of the present board, which spends money to very little purpose. If there are any problems attached to its abolition, I know that my right hon. Friend will wish to discuss them with the industry.
  The worst position for the food and drink industry would be to continue with the present system. That does not mean that the food and drink industry, or any other industry for that matter, washes its hands of the need to improve the general level of training—the very matter that we have been discussing for some hours this evening.
  I can best illustrate this commitment by quoting from a recent statement by the chairman of the Food and Drink Industries Council, Sir Adrian Cadbury. He said:
  "No one could seriously suggest that our level of training in this country is other than a disgrace. To take one simple figure, in 1977, 55 per cent. of those leaving school here received neither further education nor recognised on-the-job training; the comparable figure in Germany was 5 per cent. We all know that when the upturn comes we will be short of technologists, technicians, craftsmen and even of the semi-skilled people, whose skills are relevant to the jobs we have to fill. The craft apprenticeship system is archaic and does not begin to meet the needs of our companies for multi-craft skills and flexibility.
  We are therefore faced, as a country and as an industry, with putting forward some ideas for improving the general level of training."
  All hon. Members would agree that that statement illustrates only too clearly the responsible attitude taken by
  350
  senior industrialists to the need for better training, even where industrial training boards have been abolished because the industry is doing such a good job.
  The Government have made it clear that they are prepared to consider the abolition of certain industrial training boards provided that the relevant industry is prepared to operate a voluntary system. Edition No. 83 of "Employment News", which is published by the Department of Employment, reports my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as having said:
  "It is our aim to extend as far as possible reliance on voluntary arrangements."
  Voluntary arrangements can be as effective as the statutory approach. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) had to say on this point. There can be little doubt of industry's willingness and ability to make satisfactory voluntary arrangements for the vocational preparation of young people, possible skill shortages in the economic upturn, training needs in the new technologies, the maintenance of training standards and opportunities for craft apprentices and for adult training and retraining.
  What possible alternatives are there to the training boards? We could set up similar organisations with a greatly reduced number of employees—perhaps only one-tenth of the present number. That would represent a significant change in the character of training boards. There could be a reorganisation of training boards so that they were fewer in number but wider in scope. That would have the advantage of saving manpower. There is the possibility of setting up regional training boards which would cover manufacturing industries generally. That would have the advantage of recognising that most skill shortages and training problems differ considerably from region to region. Those boards could operate without statutory powers on the basis of a consultancy consisting of staff with relevant industry experience and funded by voluntary contributions from companies.
  Those are but a few of the options that my right hon. Friend could discuss with industry where he wishes—after the Bill's enactment—to abolish industrial training boards. My message is that the Government should get on with the abolition of boards for industries which have shown that they are discharging to the full their responsibility for training. The Government should confine the obligation to pay for training to those firms that do not already provide proper training facilities. I ask my right hon. Friend not to request good firms to pay for training in bad firms. Instead, I ask him to encourage voluntary training schemes that are run by industry through the trade associations. That is the way to success, and that is the way to increase the important industrial training opportunities that our country so badly requires.
  Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has raised some fundamental matters which go further than the considerations to be borne in mind when dealing with the amendments. The amendments deal with a situation in which some boards, at least, have continued in existence. However, I assure my hon. Friend that his remarks about the industry in which he has taken a close interest will be borne in mind, as will his penetrating remarks on general training needs.
  The effect of amendment No. 24 is to prevent a levy of more than 0·2 per cent. from ever being imposed on a non-exemptible basis, even if a consensus of employers in

  351
  the industry are in favour of such a levy. The amendment has that effect, because under the legislation all levy proposals must be approved by the Manpower Services Commission before they can be implemented by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 24 forbids the commission to approve proposals for a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent.
  9.45 pm
  It would not be right completely to remove the possibility of a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent. if the employers' organisations in the industry supported such a levy, as they have in the construction industry. For that reason, I advise the House to reject amendment No. 24.
  Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would have the effect that there could not be a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent. of emoluments unless a consensus of employers was in favour of such a levy. The Bill allows for a levy over 0·2 per cent. when there is a consensus or when the affirmative procedure is used. The effect of the amendments would be to deprive the board of the opportunity to use the affirmative procedure in the House to raise a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent.
  It would not be right to fetter the board in that way. Our reasons for coming to that conclusion are the reasons that were discussed at length in "Outlook on Training". Those hon. Members who served on the Committee know the passages so well that I do not need to bore the House by repeating them. Although my hon. Friend has raised some interesting matters, there is no justification at this stage to fetter the discretion of the boards in the way that the amendments, if carried, would fetter them.
  Mr. Barry Jones: We know that if the Under-Secretary went into the details he would bore the House rather than confuse it. In summing up a complicated set of amendments, may I say that the Opposition are in agreement with the Government.
  Mr. Shersby: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the assurance that he has given that what I have said will be borne in mind. In the many letters that pass between the food and drink industry and Departments of State it is comforting to know that what we have to say is being borne in mind. That is one of the most frequent assurances we receive, but it does not always lead to the action that we desire. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, I am sure that he will carefully consider the problems that face the food and drink industry. I hope that what I have said will act as an additional spur to my right hon. Friend to lay the necessary order when the time comes. On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—

  '(ii) the order will be made less than two years after the making of another levy order ("the former order") giving effect to proposals made by the board in respect of which he was satisfied as mentioned in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph and either—

  (a) the proposals to which the former order gave effect were that no exemption certificates should be issued or that the exemption certificates to be issued should not exempt employers from any of the levy, or

  352

  (b) the proposals to which the former order gave effect were that exemption certificates should not exempt employers from a portion of the levy and the percentage of the relevant emoluments from which under the current proposals the exemption certificates will not exempt any person will not exceed the percentage of relevant emoluments from which he was not exempted under the former order, or'

  No. 8, in page 6, line 3, leave out 'and in this paragraph' and insert—

  '(b) in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (d) of that subsection for the words from "the aggregate" to the end of the subparagraph there shall be substituted the words "the relevant emoluments, or";

  (c) after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted

  "(2B) in subsection (2A) above—

  'the relevant emoluments' means the aggregate of the emoluments and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are paid and payable by the person in question to or in respect of persons employed in the industry in respect of the period specified in the proposals as the period which is relevant for the purposes of that subsection, and".'.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Clause 5

  MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
  Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 23, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 27.
  Clause 5 provides for the application of schedule 1 and contains a reference to the contents of schedule 1. Unfortunately, schedule 1 was amended in Committee, but clause 5 was not amended correspondingly. That shows the folly of trying to spell out in clauses what is later contained in a schedule. To prevent anything else happening from now onwards, from that would need further amendment of clause 5 to change its description of what is contained in the schedule, the best course is to remove any reference in clause 5 to what is contained in the schedule.
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister is dealing with a technicality. As I understand it, he is unhappy with the reference to schedule 1 in the clause. Are not
  "members and servants of industrial training boards and their committees, the publication of information by the boards and the transfer between boards of establishments' activities"
  important matters? What persuasive case can the Minister mount to urge us to let him have his way? Is it not the case that the Department is proposing less open government?
  Mr. Waddington: The draftsman was trying to be helpful. To save people the trouble of having to refer at the same time both to clauses and to the schedule, he decided to try to repeat in clause 5 what was written into the schedule. It is all surplusage, which we can do without.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

  MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 41, at end insert—
  '3. After subsection (5) of section 9 of that Act there shall be inserted—
  (5A) Where an order has been made under subsection (1)(b) of this section for the winding up of a board, the Minister may out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  353

  (a) pay such pension, superannuation allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the former chairman of the board as he may with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service determine; and

  (b) pay such sums as he may so determine to the trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund for the purpose of meeting the whole or part of any shortfall in the assets of the Fund referable to the pensions, superannuation allowances and gratuities payable in respect of the former officers and servants of the board.".'.

  The powers given in the amendment are essential to protect the present pension rights of ITB staff who might be made redundant as a result of the winding up of boards. Our general desire to do this must be backed by a specific undertaking and power to make up deficits in the pension fund that may build up after the boards are wound up and that are attributable to their pension rights. I hope that the House will recognise that this is a necessary and proper commitment to the rights of people whose jobs could disappear as a result of decisions following the passage of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will command the support of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Hooky: My only query relates to subsection (b), which states:
  "for the purpose of meeting the whole or part of any shortfall".
  As the Government will be responsible for causing the shortfall by winding up the boards, why are they not entering into an obligation to meet the whole of any shortfall in the assets of the fund so that they can meet their obligations? In what circumstances would the Government refuse to meet the whole of the shortfall? Why should they refuse to meet the whole of the shortfall when they have created the situation in which the pension fund cannot meet its obligations?
  If it is suggested that "someone else" shall meet the other part, who is that someone else and under what conditions will that someone else be called upon to meet the shortfall? What is the full purpose of these words?
  Mr. Peter Morrison: The fund will be divided into two parts. Part of it will be for those boards that remain on a statutory basis and the other part will be for those statutory training boards that are no longer in existence. We discussed the amendment about six hours ago when talking about the money resolution and related matters.
  Employees of training boards who, as a result of those boards not being in existence five, 10 or 15 years—or even one—from now, but who will benefit in five, 10 or 15 years' time, will be secure as a result of the Government being able to top up the pension fund accordingly.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: I seek slightly more information from my hon. Friend. Will Parliament be able to see the accounts of the industrial training boards' combined pension fund? We are passing what might be a heavy commitment to the taxpayer of the future. These are index-linked pensions in the public sector. They are heavy burdens for the taxpayer to undertake. Have the Government had to top up the fund before today? What is the potential liability? Will my hon. Friend amplify the situation? Will he give an assurance that the audited accounts will be available to the House?
  Mr. Morrison: The topping up of the fund has, in effect, been done through operating costs in the past. I cannot envisage a situation in which this Government, in particular, will open their hands wide for money to be grabbed from them. My hon. Friend need have no concern
  354
  about the matter. The Government cannot commit themselves, and are not commiting themselves to underwriting index linking for ever. If as a result of the present review across the whole Government spectrum index linking is changed for other public servants, it will be changed for ITB employees.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 7, leave out paragraph 4.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 16, in page 10, leave out lines 11 and 12.
  Mr. Walker: Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 was inserted by the Under-Secretary of State in the dying minutes of the Standing Committee. I was not present. I read in the Official Report what happened. My first reaction was that the Minister's officials must have been horrified when he accepted an amendment, which now forms paragraph 4 of schedule 1, moved by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). I can only assume that the Minister acted out of gratitude for the acquiescence shown at that stage of the proceedings and felt that he owed something in response. His action can be described as "Hacker strikes back", but it has done enormous damage to the statutory structure of the industry.
  The assumption behind the amendment in Standing Committee seemed to be that the training levy paid to the training boards was met by employers dipping their hands into their own pockets. The overwhelming proportion of levy is paid by companies. These are corporate bodies that bring together the mutual interests of management, shareholders and workers within the enterprise. The interest of the worker in the enterprise is probably more important. He cannot take out his life and put it somewhere else, as a shareholder can take out his money and put it somewhere else. It is time to stop talking about the employer paying the levy as if it came out of his bank account. The money belongs to the company. The employees have as much responsibility for that money as anyone else. The workpeople and the shareholders have an equal say in these matters.
  The insertion of paragraph 4 gives an exclusive right to decide about levy to a majority of employers on the board. This applies equally to the non-returnable levy, the pan of the levy that can be raised to meet the operating costs—the staff salaries and pension arrangements—of the board.
  If employers combined together they could, either deliberately or accidentally, cripple or kill off a board. This would give employers a power that exceeds by far that of the Secretary of State or of Parliament to cripple or kill off boards. I do not rule out the possibility of employers organising themselves so that they have representatives on an industrial training board who, when the need arises for renewal of the annual levy, arrange that there shall be a motion, for example, of nil levy—
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Employment and Training Bill and the Education (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Employment and Training Bill
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Mr. Walker: A majority of the employers on an industrial training board could get together and conspire so that when the levy became renewable they moved for a nil levy, the effect of which would be to kill the board.
  If the Government want that, they should say so. If they do not, they should accept the amendment and sweep paragraph 4 from the schedule. Otherwise, there will be serious consequences for everyone engaged in the industrial training boards and for the future of the boards, which, presumably, the Secretary of State wants to retain.
  Mr. Craigen: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) piloted paragraph 4 through the Committee in the last stage of its proceedings, and the Minister fully supported him. I recall the Minister's saying that it was the only time during the whole Committee proceedings that he had agreed with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor).
  A fundamental change was made by the paragraph to the constitution of the boards. The hon. Member for Fareham is a former editor of Crossbow. He certainly scored a bull's eye for the Government in producing this result in Committee. However, in doing so he brought to an end the co-determination that has existed within our system of industrial training boards during the past 15 or 16 years.
  I wondered why parity of representation had been introduced in the original 1964 legislation. I checked and found that the Deputy Prime Minister, in a previous incarnation, was Parliamentary Secretary the then Ministry of Labour. He took the view that both sides of industry had a contribution to make to the improvement of training and that it was therefore important that there should be equity of representation on the boards.
  In moving from a statutory to a voluntary system, I hope that the Government know what they are doing by accepting this major change in the constitution of the boards. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster pointed out, the employers need only to move for a nil levy to produce effective voluntary euthanasia for industrial training boards.
  I have always taken the view that training boards can be improved; they are by no means perfect institutions. The trouble is that opinion within the country, particularly in management circles, has never accepted that training is an instrument for improving the productivity and performance, and indeed the personality, of the company or organisation. I very much regret this move. I hope the Government will have second thoughts about its full implications.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I looked through the proceedings of the Committee to try to find an explanation for the amendment, but I could not find one. Those not privileged to serve on the Committee have the duty of going out to industry, in my case the furniture industry, to explain to trade unions, which have played such a vital role in making the industry viable and with which manufacturers have a good relationship, why the Government decided that only employers' views and votes would be taken into account.
  It is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to come clean. Why can we not continue the principle of a shared
  356
  decision? The Secretary of State reiterated that he places complete faith in industry being a partnership, with workers and management playing their role and with each side having an equal say. The Secretary of State says that he will continue this approach by allowing the development of confidence between employers and trade unions. How does he justify paragraph 4? That must inevitably exclude people. It must mean that a decision will be taken by employers and everyone else involved in the enterprise will simply be told what the decision is. I can see no justification for paragraph 4.
  It is said that employers pay the levy, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, they pay it as a company and not as individuals. Therefore, it is a company responsibility, and we must remember that a company comprises management and workers. All those working in the enterprise ought to have an equal opportunity to have their say. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell those of us who were not on the Committee why he believes that the ordinary principles of shared responsibility are not acceptable and why employers should be given a specific opportunity to do what they like.
  Counter decisions taken in smoke-filled rooms somewhere else may be guided, as it were, by groups and authorities from outside. Organisations such as Aims for Freedom may give briefings and try to organise; they would become a kind of seventh estate. This is a dangerous practice. The House would be unwise to allow all of paragraph 4 to remain in the Bill. I intend to vote in favour of the amendment. The Secretary of State must tell us exactly why a change is needed.
  Mr. Prior: If I direct my remarks chiefly to amendment No. 15, it does not mean that I have not taken into account the other amendments on the Notice Paper. To explain, present legislation provides that an industrial training board must consist of a chairman, an equal number of people appointed after consultation with organisations of employers and workers in the industry respectively—that is, an equal number of employer representatives and worker representatives—and people appointed after consultation with the Education Ministers. There may or may not be a deputy chairman as well. Only employer and worker members may vote on any matter relating to the imposition of a levy.
  Paragraph 4 of schedule 1, which was inserted at the end of the Committee stage by a Back-Bench amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), requires in addition that no matter related to the imposition of a levy can be decided except in accordance with the votes of the majority of the employer members. In other words, when the levy is decided at the appropriate time of the year, a majority of the employers and the employer members of the board have to vote in favour of it.
  Hon. Members have asked me why the Government accepted that amendment. I shall try to explain why. The Government believe that employers in an industry should pay for the operating costs of a training board for that industry, just as they would have to do if training in their industry were covered by a voluntary organisation. Under the legislation, employers in due course will bear all the costs of the board—operating costs, as well as the costs of providing training and paying grants, except any derived from Exchequer funds.

  357
  It is right, therefore, that employer representatives on boards should not be forced against their will to go along with the key decisions of boards about raising money from employers. We therefore believe that it is right to strengthen the position of employers on boards. That accords with the basic principle of "He who pays the piper calls the tune".
  One of the general criticisms of training boards is that they have wasted money. They are not perfect, but nor are they imperfect. However, it is only reasonable that those who have to provide the cash—it makes no difference whether they are managers or employers—should be responsible for the manner in which a company's money is spent. They want good value for that money. It is therefore not unreasonable that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is why we accepted my hon. Friend's amendment.
  Employer organisations have told me that their representatives on boards should be given greater power than heretofor. They contend that unless their representatives are in dominant position they would not trust boards not to pursue policies inappropriate to their industries' needs and not to run their operations at excessive cost. I have been pressed very hard to give employers a majority seat on boards. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) wants. I am not prepared to go that far. I take the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) having been the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a contribution that both sides of industry—employers and employee representatives—can make together.
  I believe that the structure now proposed in the Bill is appropriate. It gives employers protection against excessive demands for money, provided that they organise themselves to make use of that protection, while at the same time preserving the tripartite structure of boards. To go further would reduce the proper influence of unions and education interests in training and risk losing their support at a time when we want their co-operation in securing essential reforms.
  The right hon. Gentleman argued that we have given employers a way of throttling boards by allowing them to veto levy proposals. That is an unreal suggestion. The reality is that members of training boards have a common interest in seeing that adequate training is provided and in agreeing sensible levy proposals to secure the necessary training provision. That common interest is likely to be strongest in those industries where boards are retained, since those may well be industries in which the demand for training in skills cannot be satisfied on a voluntary basis. Employer representatives on boards have a particular interest in seeing that all employers contribute to training provisions and that companies are not constrained by a lack of skilled labour. The appointment of membership of boards is in my hands, and I shall want to appoint people who have a commitment to adequate training, not people intent on minimising the short-term cost to employers.
  10.15 pm
  In the last resort I have powers, reinforced by the Bill, to insist on satisfactory levy proposals and to declare a board that fails to agree to be in default. In that event I could replace the recalcitrant members.
  358
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster and his hon. Friends are not justified in their argument. I believe that we are taking the right step. It destroys neither the structure of the boards nor their composition. It gives employers that extra power, if they want to discipline themselves, to keep the cost to the minimum.
  If we are to retain a number of statutory boards, which hon. Members have suggested we need, we have to build up the confidence of employers that the boards will be run efficiently, economically and non-bureaucratically. With that in mind we accepted an amendment in Committee. I commend that amendment and the present position to the House.
  It would be a great mistake to think that the structure of the boards was absolutely right before. We need to give a little extra power and discipline to the employers. I hope that they will use that power wisely in the interests of training. The country cannot afford to waste money, nor can industry. If employers spend more money on training and less on the frivolities, we shall be better pleased with the result.
  Mr. Harold Walker: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. The Secretary of State ignored all that I said when he talked about he who pays the piper. It is sometimes assumed that the employer pays out of his pocket, when he is in fact using company money. The company is a corporate entity consisting not only of shareholders but of workers and managers.
  The 1964 Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government with support from both sides of the House, did not make the type of provision contained in the Bill. There was a reality of power sharing to bring together the experience and confidence of both sides of industry. The Secretary of State has been deeply divisive. His proposal is disruptive and against an agreed bipartisan policy.
  I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence that he is responsible for making appointments to the boards. Ministers cannot have sufficient familiarity wath the people whom they appoint. Ministers take advice from people nominated by the organisations involved. Names are put forward by officials. I do not quarrel with that, but I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to convince the House that he will know who he is appointing.
  Does the Secretary of State really believe that the trade unions will be happy to send their busy, highly professional, full-time trade union officials, who have enormous demands on their time, to sit on industrial training boards, where they will be neutered and where their role will be only advisory? The right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was yet another attack on the trade union movement.
  Mr. Hooley: The Secretary of State's statement is about the most insulting reference to trade union representatives that I have heard. He said that they are not concerned with efficiency, economy or the proper running of the boards, and that financial control must be exclusively in the hands of the employers. He implied that all trade union workers have no financial stake in the industry in which they work, when their work creates the funds to finance the boards. It is insulting to suggest that they should have no say in the control of the levy. It deliberately creates two classes of member on the board. One group takes the decision about the finances, and the

  359
  other group sits around and advises on certain matters. However, once the financial structure is determined, whatever can be done by the board is limited by that.
  I am not inclined to share the fears of some of my colleagues that the employers may declare a nil levy and destroy the board. They would realise the political repercussions of doing so, which would be serious. However, it is insulting to suggest that trade union representatives on the board are not concerned about economy, efficiency and the proper running of training in their industry. The Secretary of State made a disgraceful speech.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 249.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.20 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Adams, Allen

  Ewing, Harry

  Allaun, Frank

  Field, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Fitch, Alan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashton, Joe

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ford, Ben

  Beith, A. J.

  Forrester, John

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Foster, Derek

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Foulkes, George

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Tom

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ginsburg, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Golding, John

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Graham, Ted

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

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

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Campbell, Ian

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

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carmichael, Neil

  Haynes, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

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

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Homewood, William

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hooley, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Cook, Robin F.

  Huckfield, Les

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cryer, Bob

  John, Brynmor

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Deakins, Eric

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Dixon, Donald

  Leighton, Ronald

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Dormand, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Douglas, Dick

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunn, James A.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

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

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McKelvey, William

  English, Michael

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Maclennan, Robert

  360

  McNally, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McTaggart, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Magee, Bryan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Silverman, Julius

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stoddart, David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Stott, Roger

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Morton, George

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tilley, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Welsh, Michael

  Palmer, Arthur

  White, Frank R.

  Parry, Robert

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitlock, William

  Penhaligon, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Prescott, John

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

  Race, Reg

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

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

  Richardson, Jo

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Winnick, David

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Woodall, Alec

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Robertson, George

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. Joseph Dean and

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Ryman, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Tom

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

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

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

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Best, Keith

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Colvin, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cope, John

  Blackburn, John

  Corrie, John

  Body, Richard

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Crouch, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bright, Graham

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brittan, Leon

  Dover, Denshore

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Durant, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Eggar, Tim

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Elliott, Sir William

  Buck, Antony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Budgen, Nick

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  361

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Farr, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fell, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Mellor, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Fry, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Monro, Hector

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Moore, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mudd, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gorst, John

  Myles, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Neale, Gerrard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, Harry

  Neubert, Michael

  Grieve, Percy

  Newton, Tony

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

  Normanton, Tom

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Grist, Ian

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Osborn, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hannam, John

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Henderson, Barry

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Porter, Barry

  Hooson, Tom

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Hordern, Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon patrick

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rossi, Hugh

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rost, Peter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Latham, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Silvester, Fred

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Loveridge, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Stanley, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, John

  Stevens, Martin

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Stokes, John

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

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Tapsell, Peter

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Major, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  362

  Thompson, Donald

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Trippier, David

  Wickenden, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waddington, David

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Wakeham, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Wall, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Ward, John

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Too long.
  Mr. Jones: The economic background against which the Bill must work is truly daunting. The most recent memorandum by Sir Richard O'Brien to the National Economic Development Council postulates that almost 1 million jobs were lost in 1980, that 700,000 of those jobs were lost in manufacturing industries, that the recession is much deeper than past ones, that labour shedding continues apace and on an unprecedented scale, that next year 713,000 18-year-olds and under will present themselves to the labour market and that unemployment might level off at 3 million. That shows the magnitude of the task of recovery. The question to be asked is: can the Bill help in that task of recovery?
  We believe that the Bill is dangerous and that it has trampled the MSC into the ground by denuding it of powers in clause 1. It has angered much of industry by stating that operating costs should be returned to employers next year. In addition, the Bill has offended the tripartite participants in training by its sudden appearance at the turn of the year and in advance of the MSC's sectoral review of the training boards.
  The Government have ignored the MSC by ignoring the main recommendation of the report "Outlook on Training", which stated that radical changes in the existing structures of training industry should not be affected. The Bill runs counter to that.
  In addition, 23 training board chairmen have denounced the measure, and the TUC and CBI have united in criticising it. Mr. Ken Graham, the TUC assistant general secretary, has said that not one clause of the Bill will improve training and the supply of skilled manpower. This measure, which embraces voluntarism, will not cope with the critical training demands springing from the computer revolution in Western Europe. Additionally, the 1 per cent. ceiling on levy is arbitrary and mistaken.
  There is an alarming drop in the number of apprenticeships in industry. This year it is 60,000, which is a 25 per cent. decline from the 80,000 last year. Ely September one in two school leavers will face only the dole. It is estimated that in 1982, it will be one in three. It is no exaggeration to say that the provision of apprenticeships faces imminent collapse in some areas. Companies have already to started to cut back on apprenticeships, and our industrial seed corn is at risk.
  Even worse, in the midst of the crisis, the Government have turned on the MSC. It is to suffer a cut in staff of

  363
  1,700 and over three years will lose £80 million funding. The staff and money cut would have helped to give a better service to the growing army of the unemployed. The disabled, ethnic minorities and the long-term unemployed will feel the harsh effects of the cuts.
  The Government have avoided answering basic questions. I ask again why they aim to scrap training boards, except in a few key sectors? If they work, why deny them to the rest of the economy? If they do not, why impose them on key sectors? Why have the Government opted to reintroduce voluntarism, which was discredited and abandoned by a Tory Government in 1964? What arrangements will be made for health and training under the voluntary system that the right hon. Gentleman is ushering in? Why will the Government not give an assurance that the £50 million that is to be withdrawn will be spent on training?
  We protest that throughout the Bill's progress we have not had answers to the fundamental questions that we have persistently asked. The Ministers have wriggled, prevaricated and dodged. The Bill is a disgrace and must be defeated.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Third Reading. My right hon. Friend said that the training boards were neither perfect nor imperfect. The Bill recognises that. It gives the Government the flexibility to have full statutory boards and to employ voluntary arrangements.
  Hon. Members who have received representations from training boards will be aware that all is not well. I have a wad of letters from companies supporting the work of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board. Equally, many small companies in my constituency have had very sharp words to say about some of the other training boards.
  My particular concern is with the Engineering Industry Training Board, which employs about 400 of my constituents in Watford at its headquarters and also at its Eastern and Southern regional offices. It is the largest of the training boards, covering about 3 million employees and about 25,000 firms. The engineering industry provides 14 per cent. of all employment in this country, no less than 12 per cent. of our GNP and £20 billion annual exports for the United Kingdom. It includes not only mechanical and electrical engineering training but key sectors such as aerospace, electronics and North Sea oil engineering and construction. There can, therefore, be no doubt that this is a vital sector, and I and my constituents are in no doubt that the statutory position of the Engineering Industry Training Board is essential to its success.
  There are two matters on which I am glad to say that the management of the EITB and the unions are in agreement in my constituency. The first is the return of operating cost funding to the industry. This was welcomed by the APEX branch of the EITB in a memorandum laid before the Employment Committee in February this year. Also in February this year the management wrote to me saying:
  "We would like our industry to be in control of the EITB. We want to be a service to industry and not an instrument of Government."
  The transfer to funding by the industry, however, raises a serious problem for the EITB, which I wish to put to my
  364
  hon. Friend. The Government have said that they intend to reduce support for industrial training boards in 1981–82 and to withdraw it completely in 1982–83. As things stand, this would mean that the EITB would need to be self-financing from 1 January 1982. If the decision about the board's future is not known until July, very little time will be available for it to decide on what basis the money is to be raised and to carry out the necessary consultations with the industry. Indeed, if the levy is to be in excess of 1 per cent., I understand that an affirmative resolution of both Houses will be needed. If things run as they seem to be scheduled at present, all of those decisions will have to be taken by the board in six weeks if the scheme is to be published before the start of the next training year. I very much hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some indication that he will be sympathetic about the timing of the transfer.
  My constituents rightly believe that they are playing a vital role in one of the key sectors on which the country's future depends. The memorandum submitted by the APEX branch of the EITB in Watford ends with these words:
  "We believe that our members, in working for the EITB, perform a vital job for the future survival of the engineering industry in Britain. We are proud to do that job and we wish to see it continued and extended in the future. We believe it is a job for which adequate financial and other resources must be found."
  I am glad to say that those words were echoed by the management of the EITB, who wrote to me on 5 June this year as follows:
  "Now that it has been publicly acknowledged by the engineering Employers Federation and most engineering sector working parties of NEDO among others that voluntary training arrangements in the engineering industry would be impracticable, we are looking forward with some confidence and some impatience to the ministerial decision about the future shape of the board. It is high time we were able to give our undivided attention to our raison d'être—the stimulation of high quality and efficient training in the engineering industry."
  I hope that Opposition Members will refrain from taking such a frivolous attitude to matters that are extremely important to many of my constituents, in particular to members of the APEX trade union. The letter ends:
  "We hope that the legislation will progress without undue delay and that we shall have a clear and positive statement from the Secretary of State about our future before the end of this parliamentary Session."
  I hope that the House will do as the Engineering Industry Training Board wishes and give the Bill a Third Reading with due dispatch.
  10.40 pm.
  Mr. Hooley: The Government have spent a lot of their time in the past two years in destroying or undermining what Labour Governments achieved. The Bill is unique, because this time the Government are deliberately setting out to destroy what previous Conservative Governments enacted.
  The basis of the statutory training boards was laid by the Conservative Government's enactment in 1964 and put into effect very largely by the Labour Government who succeeded them. Those arrangements were then superseded by Conservative legislation in 1973, which is the foundation of the present structure of the statutory training system in this country, and it is those two pieces of Conservative legislation, carried through the House by Conservative Governments, that will be undermined by the Bill.

  365
  Not only have the Government ignored the experience that led them to put through that legislation in 1964 and 1973; they have deliberately ignored the advice of the Manpower Services Commission, which they created in the 1973 legislation. The MSC carried through a wide-ranging review in 1979–80 of the present structure. It did not recommend anything remotely resembling the provisions of the Bill, and that review has been ignored. In effect the Government have said to the MSC "Go back and produce another review that will please us and satisfy our ideological prejudices."
  A serious crisis is developing in craft and other training in industry. The frivolity of Conservative Members is regrettable. Many of them have come in at the end of a long debate in which they have taken no part and have listened to none of the speeches. They have come here to cackle and chatter at the end of a long debate on a matter of fundamental importance to the economy of this country. The skills and training of our manpower and womanpower in this country are of the greatest possible importance, and a crisis is developing.
  In Sheffield, the Engineering Industry Training Board has a splendid training centre in Petre Street, with places for 300 apprentices. It is a fine building, with a fine staff and good equipment. It would normally expect to get 280 or 300 apprentices sent to it by engineering firms in Sheffield every year. This coming year it is expecting 40 at the most. That is one-seventh of the craft apprentice training that it would normally expect to take in year by year. That is the extent of the training crisis caused by the slump and the recession engineered by the economic policies of the Government.
  What does the Bill do? Far from suggesting that the structure created by Conservative Governments in 1964 and 1973 be strengthened, that more money be spent and that the system be enhanced, it is suggesting a throwback to the so-called voluntary system, which the Government had to admit in 1964 had failed the nation and had to be replaced.
  Why, therefore, have we before us this wretched and miserable Bill? There are two reasons. First, there are the objections of the Poujadiste small business mentality, which does not like to be involved in training, does not like statutory obligations, and does not want to be bothered with its duties to train the manpower of this country. As has been said, by and large, the big companies have carried out and are still carrying out training. However, many small companies do not want to be bothered. It is significant that the protests, moans and groans of Conservative Members throughout the debate have reflected the retailing and the hotel and catering industries. Such industries have rotten training and industrial relations records. They have never shown much interest in training or in looking after their employees.
  The second reason for the Bill is the so-called saving of £50 million. The Government are obsessed with penny notebook economics. They say that if the Treasury spends £50 million it is public expenditure and therefore wrong. If £50 million is pushed on to industry, the Government say that it is not public expenditure and that it is all right. In real terms, the result is the same. If the country spends £50 on organising training the general effect on the economy will be the same whether the money has come from the Treasury or from the pockets of industrialists. With this wretched Government's penny notebook economics, they claim that there is a £50 million saving.
  366
  If the Government are arguing that by transferring the money it will not be spent, that is the same as saying that the volume of training will decline. If the money is not spent, training will suffer.
  The Bill is destructive and unnecessary. It has caused grave disquiet to many of the more responsible and thoughtful Conservative Members. On Second Reading we heard a catalogue of complaints from Conservative Back Benchers. In addition, in Committee there were signs of a similar disquiet. The Bill is unnecessary and damaging, and I shall take great pleasure in voting against it.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I shall not go over the same arguments. However, the Government's attitude has been made clear. The Secretary of State has always argued that he understood that training involved an agreement or partnership in industry. He has always argued that training would be carried out properly only if all those involved were willing to take part in it.
  Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has made the most appalling attack on trade union representatives. I do not know how he can justify the argument that only the employer's representatives can be objective. It is an extraordinary assertion. I intervened earlier and asked for an explanation, but he did not give me one. He merely asserted that he who paid the piper called the tune. We have often heard that sentiment expressed. I tried to point out that employees pay the piper as much as anyone else. For example, safety is an important element. Training involves learning to understand one another. Therefore, to argue that only the employers' representatives have the acumen to understand business issues, that they alone will be objective when determining how much money to spend and that they alone have the ability to judge what has to be done is to make an appalling claim that cannot be substantiated.
  The claim cannot be substantiated by citing the furniture industry. The Furniture Industry Training Board has an excellent record. Both sides of the board have agreements. No one has ever suggested that trade union representatives cannot judge the work to be done. It has never been suggested that they were mischievous enough to try to charge more money. Such a claim could not be proved. The Secretary of State said that more money should be spent on training and less on frivolity. The chairmen of industrial training boards are usually employers. That was one of the criteria used when making appointments.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that Mr. Burton—who was a business man in the furniture trade—has been raising money and spending it on frivolity rather than on training? I do not know where he is spending it. I have no evidence of that if he has been doing it. The charge that the Minister has made in the House must be supported by him. He has done much harm to industrial relations, and he has set back industrial training a long way.
  I cannot advise my colleagues in the trade union to be interested in co-operating if the Secretary of State's view is that board officials are wastrels, that they do not understand the business, and that they can simply be told how much money they can have and after that no one is

  367
  interested. If a board is given insufficient money to carry out its task, what is the point of discussing the board's work? It will have no role, however much money will be raised.
  We are in a crisis, and I regret that. I am not against boards being changed, advanced or improved. That must be done. I started by viewing the Bill in an objective frame of mind. I wanted to see whether there was anything that we could do to improve the status of industrial training boards. As time has passed I have become utterly disenchanted. The answers from Ministers have been evasive and shifty, even to the few questions that I have asked. The Minister could have been helpful and have answered my four questions. It would not have taken long to explain them. He has done a mountain of harm. I shall vote against the Bill tonight, not because I object to it, but because I object to the way in which the Government have produced it and how Ministers have behaved.
  I have read all the reports of the Committee proceedings and, as I suggested in my intervention, I tried to find reasons for paragraph 4 of schedule 1. There are no such reasons in the reports. I asked the Minister whether he would do me the courtesy of explaining paragraph 4. He ignored my question. When I tried to intervene, he claimed pressure of time, that he had much to say and did not want to delay the House. Three sentences later he sat down.
  My objection to the Bill is that the Government regard industrial training as a joke and believe that the Bill is what the Back Bench backwoodsmen want. They must understand that they are undermining and will make impossible further work in industrial relations and industrial training in industry. They have put the subject back a decade, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Craigen: This is a bad Bill, and it has not improved during its progress through the House. It is the £50 million Bill, because the reason for it is to save public expenditure and avoid the necessity of giving Exchequer subsidies to industrial training boards. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that the Bill will prove to be a costly symbolism to British industry.
  I have received a letter from an employer which sums it up. He sent a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Mr. William Nicol told me that he had read the reports of the nine sittings of Standing Committee D. He concluded by saying:
  "The opposition won the debate, but regrettably lost the vote".
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Foster: I hope that Conservative Members recognise that the Government's record on industrial training is disastrous and has been made worse by the Bill. At the time of the last general election we were paraded with the stage army of Saatchi and Saatchi employees pretending to be unemployed and telling us that Labour was not working and that one of the answers was that there would be a substantial increase in training and retraining. It was argued that we would have to sweep away all the non-jobs, that Britain was vastly overmanned and that we had to get rid of all the heavily subsidised jobs throughout British society.
  368
  The Government said that they would vastly increase training and retraining. But what has happened? The burden of taxation has increased, failing to galvanise us all into entrepreneurial activity. There has been no flowing of funds into the private sector. We now learn that the underlying rate of inflation is increasing as well. In the face of all those failures, when will we have the long-promised increase in training and retraining?
  The Secretary of State has come forward with his training initiative, the objectives of which we approve, but at the same time he has brought forward this legislation, which will completely scupper his ability to deliver the goods. This is a disastrous Bill, which ought to be thrown out.
  11 pm
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: Before commenting on the Bill, and now that we have reached its final stages in the House, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and six other colleagues who did so well in Committee in exposing the inadequacies of the Bill. It is a retrograde and damaging measure.
  By persisting with the Bill the Secretary of State and his colleagues have destroyed the bipartisan support on training that has built up between the two major political parties over many years. Since the 1964 Act the principle of expanded and statutory training provisions has had wide support, not only in the House, but among sensible people in the country.
  It has never been our view—my hon. Friends brought this out during today's debate—that the structure of training boards, once established, should be set for all time. In the very nature of things there needs to be a periodic review, and some modifications of the boards may become necessary, but that should come about only through proper consultation and check, and only with proper examination by the MSC.
  If that was the Government's only intention, no additional statutory powers would be necessary. However, the powers now being sought in the Bill are blunt and arbitrary. Tory Ministers could bludgeon through changes against the wishes and the best interests of the training boards. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us how he hopes to proceed. Will he carry through changes merely for the sake of change and to satisfy some of the prejudices of his hon. Friends?
  Even today both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary said that they wanted to extend the area of, and reliance upon, voluntary arrangements. Such bland assertions by the Secretary of State and his colleagues are unsupported by any of the facts. Such statements fly in the face of every scrap of experience not only in Britain but throughout the world and among our overseas competitors.
  Worst of all, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill in advance of the review of training by the MSC, which it has been asked to complete later this year. That is a shabby and shameful way in which to treat the MSC. Also, the Government are determined to ignore the representations they have received from the chairmen of the industrial training boards. In other words, the collective view of men who have dedicated their time and experience to the training boards has been brushed aside.

  369
  Our economy has deteriorated at an unbelievable rate over the past two years. Now we are told by Ministers that there is to be some upturn, although I cannot see much evidence for it. Before too long, some stimulus will have to be given to the economy. There could not be a worse time in the history of our nation to plunge training provisions into doubt and uncertainty.
  On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that in future men and women would need to be trained not once, not twice, but perhaps three times during their working lives. How on earth will that be accomplished on the basis of voluntarism and weekend training arrangements? During the past two years great damage has been inflicted on our nation. None of the damage is more unacceptable than this attack on our training systems. Putting people to work with skills is not only more productive, but makes for social cohesion and social harmony.
  As a country, we shall pay a high price for undermining the work of the industrial training boards and for refusing to establish a powerful manpower training policy. The Bill will do a great deal of damage. It has created uncertainty. It will damage our training provisions and weaken the morale of those charged with providing training provisions. An incoming Labour Government will act with great urgency to repair the damage that the Bill has caused. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Prior: The House has heard a lot of hot air from Opposition Members tonight. They talk about the damage that the Bill will cause, while knowing perfectly well that clause 1, which gives the Secretary of State and the Government the authority to decide whether training boards should continue in a voluntary or compulsory role, represents an amendment that the Labour Opposition moved in 1973. Now they say precisely the opposite. Why was it right in 1973 but wrong in 1981?
  In 1973 the Labour Opposition thought that it must be right for the Government, at the end of the day, to be able to take decisions. Of course it must be right. However, it is also right that the Government should consult the Manpower Services Commission and that there should be a proper review, as is now being carried out. The Government have taken no decisions about the boards to be made voluntary and the boards that will remain compulsory and statutory, and will not do so until the review is completed and the results become available.
  All the stuff that we have heard from Opposition Members is a lot of nonsense. The Government's position, as set out in the Bill, is that, following the review that the Manpower Services Commission is now conducting, sector by sector, the commission will report its views to the Government, in some cases, I hope, by the end of this month, and in all cases, I hope, by the end of July. The Government will consider the views put forward. I hope that it will be possible to make final announcements early in the autumn. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is right in saying that decisions need to be made about the future of training boards as quickly as is reasonably possible. That is my intention. I cannot tell my hon. Friend tonight whether certain boards will be kept in a statutory or voluntary capacity. A decision will depend largely upon the advice that I receive from the Manpower Services Commission.
  370
  The Bill—it is very much an enabling measure—enables the Government to transfer the operating cost from public expenditure to the industry. If there are satisfactory voluntary arrangements, the cost of the arrangements will be met by the industry anyhow. If statutory arrangements are to continue, as I expect will be the case in a number of key sectors and where boards are working well, the operating costs over a period—I have stated that we shall consider the issue of timing at the appropriate stage—will be transferred to the industry.
  I believe that that is right. Industry has an important part to play in training, and it is right that the main impetus for training, should come from industry and that the cost should be borne by industry and not by Government. We in the House are rapidly getting into a position in which we think that only Governments know how to spend money and that unless we are spending the money it is not being properly spent. In effect, if industry spends this money it will spend it more carefully, more critically and more wisely than we would.
  A complaint made time and again by chairmen of training boards is that there is to much bureaucracy. Whenever Government money is spent, there are three or four channels to ensure that it is spent in a way that is accountable to Parliament. They say that when they want to improve the wages or salary of a board employee the proposal has to go to the Manpower Services Commission, to the Department of Employment and to the Civil Service Department, and that it takes years for the most simple changes to be made. All that makes me believe that it is right that the operating costs should be transferred.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend allow a degree of flexibility in the event that the consultations that need to be carried out on the raising of the levy in the engineering industry make it extremely difficult for the industry to be self-financing by 1 January 1982?
  Mr. Prior: I have said that we must look at the whole question of transferring operating costs, and I have given an undertaking that, although I want the review to be carried out on the basis that operating costs will be transferred, I would look at the question of timing when the decision is made on whether boards should remain statutory or become voluntary.
  At a time of economic recession it is important to keep our training at a high level. One great advance is the publication issued by the Manpower Services Commission, on which sit educationalists, employers and trade unionists. For the first time they have got together to prepare this new training initiative, which can revolutionise our training.
  It is no use saying that we are short of apprenticeships. We are, but the important thing is to train people for the right jobs as efficiently as we can. That is why we have to move away from an apprenticeship based on a period of years to an apprenticeship based on a standard, making more use of modular methods. We are short of apprenticeships, and this is a considerable worry to the Government. We are subsidising 25,000 apprenticeships with £30 million of Government money this year, and we might have to allocate further resources to that in the near future.
  The new training initiative, what we are doing for young people in trying to get better vocational preparation and trying to turn the youth opportunities programme into

  371
  a proper training system for all young people who would not otherwise get training are considerable advances. All that, together with the enabling power that the Bill gives to the Government, will produce a sensible structure of voluntary and statutory training boards and training arrangements. I believe that the House should give the Bill a Third Reading with acclamation.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 224.

  Division No. 216]

  [11.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alexander, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Elliott, Sir William

  Arnold, Tom

  Eyre, Reginald

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

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

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Farr, John

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Fell, Anthony

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Best, Keith

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Blackburn, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Blaker, Peter

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Body, Richard

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Bosoawen, Hon Robert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brittan, Leon

  Gorst, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

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

  Buck, Antony

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Grist, Ian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grylls, Michael

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Churchill, W. S.

  Henderson, Barry

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hooson, Tom

  Cope, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Corrie, John

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

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Crouch, David

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Dover, Denshore

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  372

  Kimball, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Knox, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Renton, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lee, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shersby, Michael

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Silvester, Fred

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Sims, Roger

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Speed, Keith

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Major, John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin

  Mates, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mather, Carol

  Stanley, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Stevens, Martin

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tapsell, Peter

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Thompson, Donald

  Moore, John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Myles, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Waddington, David

  Needham, Richard

  Wakeham, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Neubert, Michael

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Newton, Tony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Normanton, Tom

  Wall, Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Ward, John

  Osborn, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Wheeler, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Whitney, Raymond

  Parris, Matthew

  Wickenden, Keith

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wilkinson, John

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Porter, Barry

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Lord J. Douglas-Hamilton and

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  373

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Adams, Allen

  English, Michael

  Allaun, Frank

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Field, Frank

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Fitch, Alan

  Beith, A. J.

  Flannery, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bidwell, Sydneiy

  Ford, Ben

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Forrester, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Tom

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  George, Bruce

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Buchan, Norman

  Ginsburg, David

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Golding, John

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell, Ian

  Graham, Ted

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Stanley

  Haynes, Frank

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Conlan, Bernard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cook, Robin F.

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

  Cowans, Harry

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

  Craigen, J. M.

  Home Robertson, John

  Crowther, J. S.

  Homewood, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Hooley, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Huckfield, Les

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Deakins, Eric

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dempsey, James

  John, Brynmor

  Dewar, Donald

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Dixon, Donald

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Dobson, Frank

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Dormand, Jack

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Douglas, Dick

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dubs, Alfred

  Kerr, Russell

  Dunn, James A.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lambie, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Lamond, James

  Eastham, Ken

  Leighton, Ronald

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  374

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Ryman, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradfd W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  McKelvey, William

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Silverman, Julius

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNally, Thomas

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McTaggart, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Magee, Bryan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D, (W Isles)

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Stoddart, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Straw, Jack

  Meacher, Michael

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Tilley, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Newens, Stanley

  Weetch, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Welsh, Michael

  O'Halloran, Michael

  White, Frank R.

  O'Neill, Martin

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Parker, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Parry, Robert

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Penhaligon, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Race, Reg

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Woodall, Alec

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Richardson, Jo

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Robertson, George

  Mr. George Morton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  Education (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Third Reading read read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—[Mr. Younger.]
  The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 220.

  Division No. 217]

  [11.26 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Alexander, Richard

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Ancram, Michael

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Arnold, Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Atkins, Robert (Presfon N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fry, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Best, Keith

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gorst, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gow, Ian

  Blackburn, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Blaker, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grist, Ian

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Brittan, Leon

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Henderson, Barry

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hicks, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cad bury, Jocelyn

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hooson, Tom

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

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

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Corrie, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Cranborne, Viscount

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Critchley, Julian

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Knox, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Dover, Denshore

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lee, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Loveridge, John

  Farr, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  376

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  MacGregor, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Rost, Peter

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

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

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Scott, Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Major, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Marland, Paul

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Marlow, Tony

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Silvester, Fred

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Sims, Roger

  Mawby, Ray

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Speed, Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Mellor, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Squire, Robin

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steen, Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Stevens, Martin

  Monro, Hector

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stokes, John

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mudd, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Murphy, Christopher

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Myles, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Donald

  Newton, Tony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Normanton, Tom

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Onslow, Cranley

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Trippier, David

  Osborn, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Waddington, David

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wakeham, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Wall, Patrick

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Ward, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Warren, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, Bowen

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wheeler, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wickenden, Keith

  Raison, Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Renton, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Adams, Allen

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Allaun, Frank

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Buchan, Norman

  Beith, A. J.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, Ian

  377

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Graham, Ted

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Cant, R. B.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Conlan, Bernard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cook, Robin F

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

  Cowans, Harry

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

  Craigen, J. M.

  Home Robertson, John

  Crowther, J. S.

  Homewood, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Hooley, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrance

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Huckfield, Les

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Deakins, Eric

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dempsey, James

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dewar, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Dixon, Donald

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Dobson, Frank

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Dormand, Jack

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Douglas, Dick

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Russell

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Lambie, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Lamond, James

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

  Leighton, Ronald

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ewing, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Field, Frank

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Fitch, Alan

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Flannery, Martin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Forrester, John

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Derek

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Foulkes, George

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McNally, Thomas

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McTaggart, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Magee, Bryan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  378

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Maxton, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stoddart, David

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morton, George

  Straw, Jack

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Newens, Stanley

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tilley, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Torney, Tom

  Parker, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Parry, Robert

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Pendry, Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Penhaligon, David

  Weetch, Ken

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Michael

  Prescott, John

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Race, Reg

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Radice, Giles

  Whitlock, William

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Richardson, Jo

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

  Robertson, George

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Woodall, Alec

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ryman, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Mr. Frank R. White and

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Joseph Dean

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.
  SHEEP VARIABLE PREMIUM (PROTECTION OF PAYMENTS)
  Resolved,
  That the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 751), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.—[Mr. Buchannan-Smith.]

  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
  11.38 pm
  Mr. John Farr: I wish to discuss the new multi-fibre arrangement, known as MFA III. The matter was raised in the House last week during questions to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and during business questions.
  A number of hon. Members pressed, particularly during businees questions on Thurday, for a full day's debate on the important negotiations on the renewal of the MFA that are about to begin, when the present arrangement MFA II, expires.
  A good deal of concern was expressed on Monday and on Thursday. Frankly, I do not think that it is possible, in the limited time available until about 12.10 am when the House will adjourn, for us to do justice to this subject.
  I am glad to see that there are one or two hon. Members on both sides who may wish to speak before the Minister replies to the points that I shall make. It is of massive importance, in the view of all of us who are interested in the subject, and who have been fairly active in that respect in the past, that before EEC Ministers meet on 23 June, our Minister has the advantage of securing the knowledge of what hon. Members want.
  We do not say that our Minister, able though he is, can perform miracles. However, we believe that we have a right to ask that before that critical round of negotiations begins, with the meeting of European Ministers on 23 June, when an EEC stance will be crystallised, the Minister should have the benefit of the information and of the views of people who are close to the multi-fibre arrangement and all its implications.
  Therefore, tonight I can do no more than say that this is not the vehicle for a long debate. There is no time for that. A number of my colleagues wish to say a word or two. I hope that the Minister will apply his well-known expertise and pressure to make sure that we secure a major debate on the Floor of the House so that he knows what we want before 23 June.
  A number of matters deeply concern Members of Parliament with textile interests. We are desperately worried about the continual erosion of the numbers employed and about the continued increase in imports from low-cost countries. However, tonight I feel that I should say no more than to invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to join in the debate briefly and, I hope, forcefully, and support my sincere and urgent plea that the Minister should secure for us a full debate before 23 June so that we may say what we want.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. William Whitlock: I support the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in the plea which he has made.
  The multi-fibre arrangement was originally seen as a means of sharing out the misery among developed countries of importing from underdeveloped countries. As we have borne an unfair share of that burden in the past, the MFA promised a better deal for Britain. That has not come about because other countries have not strictly adhered to the terms of the MFA. They do not allow penetration of their markets in the way that it is done here. The international rules are being bent in many ways.
  380
  The MFA must be renegotiated in a way which brings justice to Britain. There must be no pussy-footing around the problem by Ministers. They have expressed their resolve to obtain justice for Britain. They must maintain that resolve. There must be no slackening in it.
  As the hon. Member for Harborough said, we must quickly have a full-scale debate on the matter so that hon. Members can bolster Ministers in their resolve. Therefore, in international negotiations the Ministers will be able to say what is the feeling which has been expressed by both sides of the House and which exists in the industry up and down the country.
  I believe that other hon. Members will make the same point. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will soon be a debate.
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on his initiative in applying for an Adjournment debate on the subject and being successful in getting one.
  I want to add my support to my hon. Friend's call for an early debate on a vital issue. About 600,000 people are employed in the textile and clothing industries. The two industries employ many more people than the steel, iron and coal industries put together. The House and the Government spend time and money on those industries. The work force, management and employers in the textile industry equally deserve attention, so I fully support the call for a full debate on the renegotiation of the MFA before the Council of Ministers meets a little later this month.
  Let me give the Minister one or two statistics to take to the meeting. In 1970, man-made fibre production employed 41,000 people. The provisional figure for June 1980 is 25,300. Comparable figures for the cotton and linen industry are 175,000, dropping to 68,800. Huge reductions have taken place in the textile industry. We have had rationalisation. All the organisations involved with the industry believe that hon. Members representing textile areas should have an opportunity to acquaint Ministers renegotiating the MFA of how strongly the House feels.
  Sadly, many people among the management, employers and work force believe that the Government and the European Commission are likely to take a less tough stand on imports than had been hoped. They feel that their stand may be weaker than when the MFA was last negotiated. I hope that that is not so. Many hon. Members believe that the present system of global ceilings for sensitive products must be strengthened and not weakened. There must be no thought of abolishing the ceiling for any category of product. There must be no exclusion from the ceiling of any country at present covered.
  Consistently through the life of this MFA we have argued that growth rates within the agreement should be restricted to the expected growth in the market. Similarly, many of us with textile interests have argued that there should be a clause permitting a reduction in access to our market when there is a decline in consumption—that is, a recession clause.
  I know how strongly the Minister feels about the subject. I know of the calls that he has made on the textile industry up and down the country and the contact that he has with trade organisations, individual employers and

  381
  trade unions. I sincerely beg him to take up the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and to press the Government to find time to debate a subject that is vital to 600,000 people, because, if that is not important, what is?
  11.48 pm.
  Mr. K. J. Woolmer: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on securing the Adjournment debate. I thank him for his generosity in giving way to other hon. Members. It is a well attended Adjournment debate, and shows the strong feeling about this important matter.
  I am part of the West Yorkshire interest in the wool textile and clothing industry. The matter concerns not only Yorkshire, Lancashire, Nottingham, the East Midlands, Scotland, the West Country and the clothing industries of London but a large number of other constituencies. The industry has lost over 160,000 jobs in the past two years. I do not pretend that the problem has arisen only in that period. A major series of industries is being eroded.
  This is not the occasion to go into the many ramifications of the important trading agreement, which strikes at the heart of many communities in Britain. I am sure that hon. Members in the House tonight will agree with me that the proper time to discuss this would be in a full debate so that the whole House might express its views on industries and trade agreements which affect so many communities in this country. Whatever the precedents, it would be quite wrong on this occasion for the House not to have the opportunity to express its views on all aspects of this trade agreement before the European Commission and the European Ministers come to their view on the negotiating position.
  I hope that this evening has provided the opportunity for the Minister of State to see the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. On many occasions in the past, he has shown that he is willing to listen. I hope that he will be able to reflect that again tonight and give us an assurance that the debate for which we all so earnestly wish will take place.
  11.50 pm
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I, too, am grateful to my hon Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for securing this Adjournment debate. It is crucial that the views of the House should be known. The views of the European Parliament have been made plain on many occasions, but the views of the House have not been properly expressed. My hon. Friend referred to the growth recession clause. We have had assurances from various Ministers on that, but unless we back it up right to the last minute we feel that we may lose on points such as that. We mentioned this, for example, in a booklet called "Textiles in the '80s" which some colleagues and I drew up precisely to draw the Minister's attention to the items that we thought should be included in the multi-fibre arrangement for which negotiations commence in October.
  The House must have the opportunity to strengthen the Minister's hand in the coming negotiations. I therefore beg him to persuade the Leader of the House to give us a full day's debate on this matter.
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Ben Ford: I merely add my voice to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House.
  382
  This is being pursued as an all-party matter. We seek no political advantage on either side, except to achieve security of employment for those who remain in the textile industry, in the cotton, wool, hosiery and other sectors. We are aware that Ministers bear a heavy responsibility for securing the negotiating mandate for the multi-fibre arrangement when they meet on 23 June.
  I therefore add my voice to those who have requested a full-scale parliamentary debate before 23 June so that Ministers may understand the depth of feeling in the House reflected from the constituencies that we represent in order that democracy may be served.
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My constituency has been devastated by closures of mills never to open again, while others are rapidly slimming down to try to survive. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that we can have a full-scale debate to save the remaining mills and to strengthen the industry, which is bigger than the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board put together. We must have a full-scale debate so that, when our Ministers go to Europe to renegotiate the MFA, people there will know that we really mean business, that we are fighting to save our industry and that all parts of the House in the United Kingdom are united in that aim.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. Stanley Cohen: It is pleasing to witness the rare occasions when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber share a concern. Politics apart, we share a concern about those whom we represent. As a Member for Leeds, which has always been noted as a clothing industry area, I express my concern about the number of jobs that have been lost in the Leeds area in the clothing industry and in the West Riding in the textile industry. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and I had the opportunity to visit Taiwan, he quoted a figure that I shall repeat tonight. He said that 2,000 jobs per month were being lost in the textile industry in this country. There is, therefore, cause for grave concern in all parts of the House among Members like ourselves who represent the areas in which those job losses are occurring.
  In view of what has been said from all parts of the Chamber, I hope that the Minister and the Leader of the House will give us the opportunity of having a full-scale debate about the problem and the effect that it is having not only in Yorkshire and Lancashire but throughout the country generally, so that we may come to some sort of arrangement before the negotiations take place.
  11.55 pm
  Mr. D. A. Trippier: Since the Minister of State has held office in the Government he has been under considerable pressure from hon. Members in all parts of the House who represent textile constituencies. He has responded to that pressure on many occasions and I have no doubt that he will respond to the pressure this evening, and to the pressure that will be put on him in a future textile debate, which I hope will be before the discussions are held within the European Community.
  It is very important to convey to the European Community the sort of pressure that the Minister is under. I would have thought that it would be of great advantage to him in his negotiating stance that he should convey the

  383
  strength of feeling which exists among Members of Parliament who represent the textile constituencies. There would be nothing worse than for him to go to the negotiating chamber without having had a debate behind him, and without an opportunity having been given to Members of Parliament to strengthen his arm. That is all we are seeking to do tonight, and we hope that our application to him will meet with a favourable response.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The message from the Wool Textile Action Group, which met on Friday 22 May at Wakefield, on behalf of the woollen industry—and I know that this feeling was duplicated in the cotton textile industry, the knitting industry and the clothing industry—was that there is serious concern about the MFA, and that there needs to be a discussion about it in the House of Commons.
  People outside look to the House of Commons to air their views. It is not sufficient for the Government to say "Leave it to the Opposition Supply day." This is an important matter, because it is the Government mandate that will be negotiated during the MFA renewal. Therefore, it seems to me a legitimate claim by both sides of the House that the Government should give time and that they should elaborate, in part or in whole, their view of what the mandate should be, so that we by our expression of strength of opinion can strengthen their view, to ensure that a sufficiently adequate MFA—including the recession clause—is negotiated.
  We have to ensure that the jobs of over 600,000 people are retained and may be developed and improved. The view of the trade unions and the employers' side at the meeting in May to which I referred was not one of hope. It is incumbent on Parliament and the Government to set down a debate so that some hope and renewed confidence can be given to the industry.
  11.58 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Tonight has been a unique exercise mounted by a body of hon. Members. Ten Members have spoken in 19 minutes, which gives the lie to the notion that Members of Parliament are not capable of making short speeches. What has come out clearly from all the speeches is a very strongly held view that Parliament must have a say about the renegotiation of the MFA, and that the way that Parliament would like to have that say is by mounting a full-scale debate on the subject.
  The Department of Trade would welcome such a debate. It is clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House want it. I shall ensure that this very strong feeling, of which the Government are already aware, is conveyed to the Leader of the House. As hon. Members know, what we debate is a matter for him and not for me. The message of the House is clear and unmistakable. I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of it. I give hon. Members an undertaking that I shall report to him on the speches that I have heard.
  By this "exercise", hon. Members have demonstrated that they have ways of getting their message through to the Government. I did not need to be reminded of that. I have spoken to and have been available to any hon. Member from a textile constituency who has wished to see me. I
  384
  have seen deputations from the industry, from the trade unions, from management and from Members of Parliament. I remain open at all times to approaches from colleagues and from the industry. The Government recognise the big problems that face the industry. In the few minutes available I should like to emphasise the Government's commitment to the industry, to discuss the way in which the process of renegotiation will get under way and to deal with the Government's general line of approach.
  I turn to the Government's commitment to the industry. I do not want to cite masses of boring statistics. As hon. Members know, on behalf of the Government I administer 570 quotas with 42 low-cost suppliers from all over the world. I have added to that number of quotas at the rate of about one every two weeks since the Conservative Party has been in power. We have negotiated agreements with the Mediterranean suppliers with whom we did not have agreements and we have taken a tough line with the State traders. We have embarked on a process of obtaining proper transitional arrangements for Spain and Portugal, when they become members of the EEC.
  On a daily basis, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to the textile industry. Again I emphasise the Government's awareness of the industry's importance as an employer, as the supplier still, in value, of about 70 per cent. of all the textiles and clothing purchased in Britain and as the exporter of over £2,170 million worth of goods last year. Therefore, as has been said, it is a huge and important industry and the Government are acutely aware of that. The arrangements under the present MFA are, on the whole, working as originally envisaged. However, the market is not the market that it should have been. It is not the market for which the present arrangements were designed.
  I turn to the process of renegotiation. As hon. Members know, we are consulting widely at home. Hon. Members, representatives of all sections of the industry, individual employers and trade unions are making their views known to us. The Government are setting up a working group with the industry, which will function throughout the renegotiations. In that way the Government and the industry will know what the other one is up to and will be in continuous contact. Within the EEC the tempo is building up. At a steadily escalating official level there have been discussions. As hon. Members know, on 23 June the first ministerial discussions will take place.
  I expect those discussions to be general. The newly elected French Government are unlikely to have a finally formed view. That will be the first exchange of views at ministerial level. On 23 June we shall not settle the Community's mandate once and for all. We shall be probing each other's minds. That process has already begun. I have met ministerial colleagues from all parts of the Community in recent months. We have been exchanging views about the sort of renegotiation we would like. We have been testing each other's ideas on each other.
  Recently I was in the United States, where I had discussions with Senator Brock. Senator Brock has subsequently been here. The United States is beginning to develop its ideas. Thus, 23 June is an important occasion because it will be the occasion of the first formal ministerial exchange of views. It will not be the last occasion, and the final definitive negotiating mandate will be evolved over a period beginning with 23 June.

  385
  In addition to the negotiations and discussions within the Community, the preliminary discussions on negotiations have begun in the GATT textiles committee. One of the things which emerged, which was a surprise, was that there was a general agreement between supplier and recipient countries of the need to have a renewal of the MFA. That might have been contentious, but it is accepted on all sides that the MFA must be renewed. The build-up to the negotiations has begun and hon. Members are correct to say that Parliament must have a say. I hope that hon. Members will accept that they have been entitled to have a say, have had access to the Government on a continuing basis in the past few months and will continue to have such access. If we have a debate, that will not be the final opportunity for hon. Members. My door remains open to hon. Members who wish to consult or to express a view during the negotiations.
  I summarise briefly some of our objectives in the renegotiation. The Prime Minister has said that she expects the Ministers in her Government to negotiate a tough and effective successor the the MFA. She has made that clear
  386
  to us all, to the public and industry. I do not want to go into great detail, but shall touch on a few of the major subjects.
  We accept that the arguments for a recession clause are strong. We have said so on a number of occasions. My reasoning for that is that it seems that if one enters into an arrangement on the basis of a set of assumptions, which turn out to be false, there should be a mechanism for adjusting the arrangement to the facts and not to the imagined facts. The Government are strongly committed to that. It will not be easy to negotiate. There is resistance to it. I have tried the idea on a number of people. I told the industry that if it wants to help us it must get its colleagues in industries in other Community countries and in countries outside the Community to see the necessity for the clause. We accept that there is a strong case for it. We also accept that there is a need to look at growth rates—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE
  Bilateral Agreements (Industrial Co-operation)
  Bilateral Agreements (Industrial Co-operation)
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Warsaw Convention (Compensation Scales)
  Warsaw Convention (Compensation Scales)
  Sisal, Abaca and Coir
  Sisal, Abaca and Coir
  Tin, Cocoa and tea
  Tin, Cocoa and tea
  Community Trade Marks
  Community Trade Marks
  Consumer Advice (Scotland)
  Consumer Advice (Scotland)
  Coastal Pollution (Control)
  Coastal Pollution (Control)
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Holiday Caravan Industry
  Holiday Caravan Industry
  Import Deposits Scheme (Italy)
  Import Deposits Scheme (Italy)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Drug Prices
  Drug Prices
  Preventive Medicine Schemes
  Preventive Medicine Schemes
  Nurses (Pay and Conditions)
  Nurses (Pay and Conditions)
  National Health Service (Administration Costs)
  National Health Service (Administration Costs)
  Death Benefit
  Death Benefit
  Rural Hospitals (Journey Costs)
  Rural Hospitals (Journey Costs)
  St. Benedict's Hospital, Tooting
  St. Benedict's Hospital, Tooting
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Overseas Visitors (Medical Treatment)
  Overseas Visitors (Medical Treatment)
  National Health Service (Leicestershire)
  National Health Service (Leicestershire)
  Intensive Domiciliary Care Schemes
  Intensive Domiciliary Care Schemes
  Thames Region (District Health Boundaries)
  Thames Region (District Health Boundaries)
  Homes for the Elderly
  Homes for the Elderly
  Merseyside (Health Service Reorganisation)
  Merseyside (Health Service Reorganisation)
  Whooping Cough Vaccination
  Whooping Cough Vaccination
  West Yorkshire (Primary Health Care)
  West Yorkshire (Primary Health Care)
  Unemployment and Ill-health
  Unemployment and Ill-health
  Social Security Inspectors
  Social Security Inspectors
  Health Authorities (Fund-raising)
  Health Authorities (Fund-raising)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  St. George's Hospital
  St. George's Hospital
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Independent Charitable Homes
  Independent Charitable Homes
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Advisory Group on Hepatitis
  Advisory Group on Hepatitis
  Primary Health Care Study Group (Report)
  Primary Health Care Study Group (Report)
  Retirement
  Retirement
  "Growing Older" (White Paper)
  "Growing Older" (White Paper)
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Health Care Services (Standards)
  Health Care Services (Standards)
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Unemployment Benefit (Dependency Increase)
  Unemployment Benefit (Dependency Increase)
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  "Silent Minority" (Documentary)
  "Silent Minority" (Documentary)
  Health Services
  Health Services
  Knottingley, Pontefract and Osgoldcross (Family Doctors)
  Knottingley, Pontefract and Osgoldcross (Family Doctors)
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  National Health Service Charges
  National Health Service Charges
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals Site
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals Site
  Baby Foods
  Baby Foods
  Breast Cancer (Identification)
  Breast Cancer (Identification)
  Working Group on Rickets
  Working Group on Rickets
  Central Council for Nursing and Midwifery and Health Visiting
  Central Council for Nursing and Midwifery and Health Visiting
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  London Advisory Group
  London Advisory Group
  Steering Group on Health Services Information
  Steering Group on Health Services Information
  Health Service Supply Council
  Health Service Supply Council
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Visitors' Guides
  Visitors' Guides
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Citizens of the Republic of Ireland
  Citizens of the Republic of Ireland
  Demonstrations and Processions (Photographs)
  Demonstrations and Processions (Photographs)
  Legal Aid Officers
  Legal Aid Officers
  Prisoners on Remand
  Prisoners on Remand
  Charities Commission
  Charities Commission
  Protection of Vertebrate Animals
  Protection of Vertebrate Animals
  Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments
  Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments
  Breakfast Television
  Breakfast Television
  Magistrates' Courts (Communication Service)
  Magistrates' Courts (Communication Service)
  Special Patrol Group
  Special Patrol Group
  Taxi Fares
  Taxi Fares
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Grenada (Aid)
  Grenada (Aid)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  President of the United States
  President of the United States
  Government Action (Priorities)
  Government Action (Priorities)
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Employment Opportunities for Women
  Employment Opportunities for Women
  Joint Projects (Departmental Co-ordination)
  Joint Projects (Departmental Co-ordination)
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Visit to Northern Ireland
  Visit to Northern Ireland
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food and Drugs Act 1955
  Food and Drugs Act 1955
  European Community (National Aids)
  European Community (National Aids)
ENERGY
  Foundry Industry
  Foundry Industry
  Coke
  Coke
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
SCOTLAND
  Stobhill Hospital (Nurses Training School)
  Stobhill Hospital (Nurses Training School)
  Local Government (Committee of Inquiry)
  Local Government (Committee of Inquiry)
  Council for Tertiary Education
  Council for Tertiary Education
  Scottish Countryside Commission
  Scottish Countryside Commission
  Caithness Central Hospital
  Caithness Central Hospital
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Craiglockhart College of Education
  Craiglockhart College of Education
  Housing Associations (House Improvements)
  Housing Associations (House Improvements)
INDUSTRY
  European Community (Regional Development Fund)
  European Community (Regional Development Fund)
  European Community (Industrial Change)
  European Community (Industrial Change)
  National Enterprise Board (Chief Executive)
  National Enterprise Board (Chief Executive)
  European Community (Policy Development)
  European Community (Policy Development)
  Foundry Industry
  Foundry Industry
  European Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  European Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Manufacturing Industry (Wages and Salaries)
  Manufacturing Industry (Wages and Salaries)
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Report
  Official Report
  Inquiry into the Value of Pensions
  Inquiry into the Value of Pensions
EMPLOYMENT
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Manufacturing Industry (Greater Manchester)
  Manufacturing Industry (Greater Manchester)
  Wages Inspectors
  Wages Inspectors
  Alexander Redgrave Memorial Lecture
  Alexander Redgrave Memorial Lecture
  Health and Safety Executive (Advisory Committees)
  Health and Safety Executive (Advisory Committees)
  Work Experience Programme
  Work Experience Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Wythenshawe
  Wythenshawe
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  School leavers
  School leavers
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Community Service Committee
  Community Service Committee
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prime Minister (Visit)
  Prime Minister (Visit)
  Montreaux Convention (Through-deck Cruisers)
  Montreaux Convention (Through-deck Cruisers)
  New Territories, Hong Kong
  New Territories, Hong Kong
  Electricity and Gas Disconnections
  Electricity and Gas Disconnections
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Heads of Missions
  Heads of Missions
  South Africa (Radar Units)
  South Africa (Radar Units)
  Advisory Panel on Disarmament and Non- Proliferation
  Advisory Panel on Disarmament and Non- Proliferation
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Revenue and Expenditure Account
  Revenue and Expenditure Account
WALES
  Ruthin—Mold Trunk Road
  Ruthin—Mold Trunk Road
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Bangor
  Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Bangor
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Nursing Staff)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Nursing Staff)
  Family Medical Practitioners
  Family Medical Practitioners
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Roads
  Roads
  Housing Management (Departmental Staff)
  Housing Management (Departmental Staff)
  Bridgend, Cymmer and Maesteg
  Bridgend, Cymmer and Maesteg
  Registered Disabled (Unemployment)
  Registered Disabled (Unemployment)
  Housing Management Advisory Panel
  Housing Management Advisory Panel
  Grazing Land
  Grazing Land
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Petrol and Derv
  Petrol and Derv
  Income Tax and Surtax (Scotland)
  Income Tax and Surtax (Scotland)
  Customs and Excise Duties (Scotland)
  Customs and Excise Duties (Scotland)
  Income and Corporation Tax (Scotland)
  Income and Corporation Tax (Scotland)
  International Monetary Fund (Meeting)
  International Monetary Fund (Meeting)
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Government Departments (Audit Arrangements)
  Government Departments (Audit Arrangements)
  National Audit Office
  National Audit Office
  £ Sterling (Parity)
  £ Sterling (Parity)
  Commercial Bank of Wales
  Commercial Bank of Wales
  Banks (Designation)
  Banks (Designation)
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Committee)
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Committee)
  North Sea Oil (Company Taxation)
  North Sea Oil (Company Taxation)
  Husbands and Wives (Taxation)
  Husbands and Wives (Taxation)
  Value Added Tax and Excise Duty
  Value Added Tax and Excise Duty
TRANSPORT
  Highways Act 1980 (Advance Payments Code)
  Highways Act 1980 (Advance Payments Code)
  A10 (Potters Bar)
  A10 (Potters Bar)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Roads
  Roads
  British transport Hotels
  British transport Hotels
ENVIRONMENT
  Salvation Army
  Salvation Army
  Carrick Forest (Nuclear Waste)
  Carrick Forest (Nuclear Waste)
  Housing (Mobility Schemes)
  Housing (Mobility Schemes)
  Limestone
  Limestone
  Prison (Woolwich Arsenal)
  Prison (Woolwich Arsenal)
  Accounts Commission
  Accounts Commission
  Local Authorities (Housing Costs)
  Local Authorities (Housing Costs)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Advisory Committee on Business Sponsorship of the Arts
  Advisory Committee on Business Sponsorship of the Arts
  Advisory Committee of Microelectronics in Education
  Advisory Committee of Microelectronics in Education
  Young Persons (Educational Activities)
  Young Persons (Educational Activities)
  Industrial and Commercial Training
  Industrial and Commercial Training
  University Entrants
  University Entrants
  Unemployment and Health (Research)
  Unemployment and Health (Research)
  Staff-Student Ratios
  Staff-Student Ratios
DEFENCE
  Contract Cleaning and Catering
  Contract Cleaning and Catering
  Warships
  Warships
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
  Leander Class Frigates
  Leander Class Frigates
  HMS "Hermes"
  HMS "Hermes"
  Recruitment Staff
  Recruitment Staff

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

Baroness Lane-Fox
Felicity Lane-Fox, OBE, having been created Baroness Lane-Fox, of Bramham in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Grimthorpe and the Lord Holderness.

Racial Violence Inquiries
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 progress is being made by the Home Office in the inquiries into racial violence and racial organisations which were announced in February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a survey of the incidence of alleged attacks by members of one racial group on another is being conducted in 13 police areas in England and Wales. This survey will be completed by the middle of July. In the meantime, Home Office officials are visiting these areas to discuss the issues directly with the police, local authorities and members of the ethnic minority communities. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce the conclusions of the study as soon as possible.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend very much for that most encouraging reply. I think the sooner this report is published and the details known to the public, the better it will be in this difficult situation for the police. I am delighted to hear that the results of this survey are to be published in July.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the reception she has given to my Answer.

Parole: Proposed Extension
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon they expect to be in a position to reach a conclusion on the Home Office proposals for extending the
116
provision of parole to prisoners serving 18 months or less, as outlined in the recently published departmental review of the parole system in England and Wales.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in his foreword to the review that the Government had reached no conclusion on these proposals, and was publishing them as a basis for informed discussions. We shall decide as soon as possible, in the light of reactions to the review, whether to ask Parliament to approve a scheme on the lines proposed.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who served on the Parole Board himself and is therefore in a position to speak with first-hand knowledge of the matter, has spoken publicly in favour of this proposal? Furthermore, in view of the urgent need to reduce the prison population and the prospect held out by the Home Office review that this proposal could have the effect of reducing that population by some 7,000 prisoners, and of the resultant benefit to the community at large, as well as to prisoners themselves, of their serving a proportion of their prison sentences under supervision in the community, will the noble Lord impress on his right honourable friend the urgency and importance of implementing a proposal on these lines at an early date?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said as a result of the reply I gave. Yes, indeed, I am aware that the Lord Chief Justice has already commented that the proposed scheme could prove successful and worthwhile. If I might register my agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, then went on to say, it can be argued, of course, that statistically parole has worked. Statistically, we can see that those who are granted some parole are less likely to commit subsequent offences than those who have not had parole. Frankly, I attach a very great deal of importance to that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, with his experience, for the importance he attaches to it, too. As far as the noble Lord's final question is concerned, my right honourable friend hopes to be able to reach a decision in time to take advantage of any opportunity for legislation which may be available next Session. I hope the noble Lord can decipher what I mean and that I have made myself clear.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, in the event that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Home Secretary releases more prisoners on parole, may I ask whether adequate steps will be taken to see that the supporting service—namely, the probation service, which is responsible for looking after parolees—is strengthened so that adequate numbers of probation officers will be available? I am sure that the noble Lord knows that that service is very much overstressed at present.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the central concept of parole, release under supervision with liability to recall,

117
is proposed for this scheme for early release. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the probation service has plenty of work on its hands and that this will be an additional commitment for it if Parliament thinks it right that such a scheme should come into effect. In that event, I think that Parliament must assess what this will mean for the probation service and we must take decisions then.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that copies of the discussion document are not available in the prisons, and since the governors, members of prison staff and prisoners are in a better position than the general public to make comments on it, will he not see that copies are placed in the libraries of our prisons? Also, can the noble Lord say whether there is not a danger that discrepancies will arise between short sentence prisoners, who will get automatic remission and who therefore if sentenced to 18 months will do only six months, and the men who get long-term sentences where, if they do not qualify for parole and get a two-year sentence, will serve 16 months minimum? Cannot the noble Lord say whether, in conjunction with these reforms, the Government will implement the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Penal Policy for reduction of the maximum length of sentences?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, certainly I will look into the question of making available copies of the document to the prison service. Copies have already been made available on a wide scale. As to the general thrust of what the noble Lord is saying in his second supplementary question, I think it is certain that if the scope of this scheme were to run at the lower end from those with six-month sentences to those at the upper end with three-year sentences, there would be no anomalies and therefore the rest of the supplementary question which the noble Lord asked would fall.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the report in today's Guardian, the accuracy of which I am unable to guarantee, which suggests that the secretary of the Magistrates' Association—and may I say that some of my best friends are magistrates?—has said that if the scheme were pushed through the magistrates might retaliate—and I repeat the word "retaliate"—by committing more offenders to Crown Courts for sentencing? Does the noble Lord think it suitable for magistrates who are appointed by the Crown, through the Lord Chancellor, to speak of retaliation against a decision of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not wish to make any comment on what the noble Lord has put to me about that, except to say that with regard to the suggestion—and it was no more than a suggestion; because this review is for consideration, and indeed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked for views to be expressed by the end of July so that the Government can then think of their position—which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the scope of the scheme could be between six months
118
and three years, I do not think that this would so much affect the work of the magistrates' courts because of the six-month period. That would be entirely incidental. There are sensible statistical reasons for making the suggestion which I have made. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising as a matter of principle whether this scheme is a good thing or whether it is not. I should like to repeat once again that I think there are arguably good reasons for seeing whether some form of early release scheme should not extend to those at the shorter end of the sentencing tariff because they might benefit in the same way as those who have had parole in the past have done—they have shown (to my surprise, I must say, when I read the review) that those who receive parole are less likely to offend in the future than those who have not.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said, is the Minister aware that there is a great measure of support on this side of the House for what was said about strengthening the probation service, not only numerically but in the quality of the men and women employed; because if this scheme is to work it is essential that it is properly undertaken?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier. The recall rate of those who misbehave while on parole under the parole scheme, ever since the scheme was brought in under the Parole Board's supervision under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in 1968, has remained pretty constant at between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. I ascribe one of the reasons for this steadiness of the recall rate to the work done by the probation service in supervision.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if and when this scheme comes into being, can my noble friend give an undertaking that the magistrates will not do what it is thought some of the higher courts do, which is to pass longer sentences on people because parole is taken into account? It is statistically shown that the sentences passed in the 1930s were shorter than those passed in the 1960s and 1970s. Can this point also be taken into account?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is not for me to give any undertakings as to the way in which the courts should exercise their judicial discretion. Perhaps it is more seemly for me to repeat, as a final word, a point I made at the beginning: that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has commented that the scheme proposed could prove successful and worth while.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, while each and every Government from time to time tend to make a virtue out of necessity by doing something about reducing the number of prisoners in this country—which is a necessity—would the Minister be prepared (I hope it is fair to ask him this) to give an undertaking that the Government will not pursue this matter of releasing more people on parole until they have taken a thorough stock of the services which will provide back-up and support?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it is most important that I should repeat that my right honourable friend has asked for reactions to this review. The review is of course a review of the whole of the work of the parole system during its first 11 to 12 years. Also, he has asked for reactions to the paragraphs within that review winch deal with this scheme which is the subject of the Question today. My right honourable friend will of course take very serious account of any views which are expressed.

Community Service by School-leavers
3 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to make a statement about the outcome of ministerial discussions regarding some form of general community service by school-leavers, which were reported recently in the press.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government are not at present considering any new proposal for community service by school-leavers, although we have welcomed the discussion generated by the recent publication of Youth Call's debating document. There are national programmes to help young people who cannot find work—in particular, the Youth Opportunities Programme—and the Government will be considering the development of these programmes in the context of a review of special employment measures later in the year.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that a considerable number of people with long experience of young people, their needs and their problems, have been advocating some form of nationwide community service for many years quite unconnected with the current unemployment situation among teenagers? Is the noble Earl further aware that recent public opinion polls among young people themselves have indicated that a significant majority of those asked would welcome being called upon to undertake tasks of benefit to other people in their neighbourhoods or in the wider community?
In view of the widespread interest in this idea, and some reservations expressed about it, would it not be helpful if the Government were to give some indication of their views on this suggestion at this point in time, coupled with an assurance that any such scheme would not be linked with the unemployment situation or used as a substitute for jobs?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am well aware of the interest in some form of national community service. I am also aware that this is a long-standing interest and not restricted to the very critical situation at present when unprecedented numbers of young people are leaving school in an unprecedentedly poor
120
labour market. I am aware of that position. On the question of the poll, it is certainly true that if you asked people whether young people should be given something useful to do, overwhelmingly they will answer "yes". The difficulty is whether you can do this voluntarily or whether you need an element of compulsion. The Government's view is that our present schemes within the Youth Opportunities Programmes and others, are probably the best way to proceed. We review them in the light of situations that arise.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the first priority under present circumstances must surely be that as many young school-leavers and college-leavers as possible should get into a proper job where they can start earning a living for themselves and for their country? When it comes to expanding or developing the Youth Opportunities Programme, would he also agree that there are two constraints: one is what we can afford; the other—which may be the greater—is finding a sufficient number of people adequately qualified and skilled to manage the schemes which make up the programmes? Unless the young people on the programmes are given an experience which is useful to themselves and provides something which is useful to the community, the public expenditure is not justified.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for some very sensible supplementaries, if I may say so. The difficulty is that the kind of jobs available now for 16 year-old school-leavers—fundamentally unskilled jobs—are disappearing fairly fast out of the economy. Most people who think of themselves as having a professional background will not seek to put their own children on the labour market aged 16. This is increasingly liable to be denied to others due to changes in the economy. The Government's longer term objectives are to ensure that all 16 or 17 year-olds not in education or real employment should receive some systematic vocational preparations necessary up to the age of 18. We are trying to move towards this.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that if there is—as many noble Lords would wish—to be some kind of national community service, for school-leavers at any rate, in order to operate it successfully it would have to be compulsory?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I tried, in my initial Answer, to give the Government's view that a form of compulsory national community service would not be possible or desirable, and that it would be better to proceed by extending the existing programmes into a systematic form of vocational preparation. My Lords, I apologise for not answering the second supplementary from my noble friend Lord Sandford. He is right to say that there are difficulties, particularly as one comes out of recession, in finding sufficiently skilled people to act as the trainers.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is widespread interest in all parties in both Houses and throughout the country in some form of

121
community service? If this is brought about, will he make sure that at least volunteers have the opportunity of doing some of that service in our armed forces? Is it not a fact that £383 million is being dedicated this year to the under-25s for job opportunities? From that sum just 1 per cent. would allow several thousands to get very useful training in our armed forces. In an emergency later on, that might be of supreme importance to the safety of our country and our community. Would he exclude military service as one of the options open to young people?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence sponsors Youth Opportunities Programmes at present and has done so for some time. Ministers are discussing what further help might be given to unemployed young people by the Ministry of Defence.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government would consider running a course for children who have completed their O-levels in the maintained sector? They leave school next week, as my daughter does against the wishes of her parents. Could this course be for useful citizenship, first aid, home nursing and those things which would then enable the children to make better volunteers?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the experience of the noble Baroness, as I too am in a rather comparable parental position. But the Youth Opportunities Programme provides some social skill training, including elementary nursing. As I said in my original Answer, we think that refining and improving this programme is still the best way to proceed.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, while not wishing to detract from the proposal in Lord Hunt's Question, would the noble Earl not feel that a major contribution could be made to reducing unemployment in the 16 to 18 age group by persuading very many more of them to stay on at school or in local colleges and instituting a national mandatory system of maintenance allowances? That would be a great deal cheaper than the money we spend at present on the job opportunities scheme on unemployment pay.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have investigated this. Unfortunately, much as I should like to agree with the noble Lord, there is not a straight trade-off in cost between a form of allowance while one is still at school and either supplementary benefit or a youth opportunities allowance later. I agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable for people to stay on at school in order to get the right mix of qualifications and skills for a much tougher labour market in the future.
Baroness David: My Lords, could the Minister say, if his department is really promising some further definite voluntary year's training, whether some form of voluntary service could be a part of that training? That would be very useful for young people and the community as well. May I ask this specific question: Why has his department not responded to requests for funding for 2,000 community service volunteers?
122
This is a scheme which has been costed by well-known accountants. This request was made some 11 months ago, further information being provided to the voluntary service unit at the Home Office at the noble Earl's request last January. This seems so necessary at the moment.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very well prepared to take up this specific case with the Manpower Services Commission, which, as the noble Baroness knows, operate these schemes. My information is that community service volunteers have had fairly substantial Government funds in the past, but I will look into the present position.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, while accepting what the noble Earl the Minister has said about community service, would he not agree that it would be much more beneficial for the young people themselves and for industry generally if he were to do something which would further apprenticeships in all forms of industry?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that nearly everybody is agreed that the present apprentice system is unsatisfactory, that it is much too rigid and needs change. It is with that in view that the Government have asked the Manpower Services Commission to review the apprenticeship system in this country. We will of course be deliberating on the results of that review.

DINNER
Viscount Long: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. Subject to progress on the Report stage of the Forestry Bill, the House may adjourn at approximately seven o'clock for a short period.

Lords' Expenses
3.11 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I beg to move the first of the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak to both Motions together. The first gives effect to an increase in the Peers' expenses allowance and the allowance for secretarial assistance for office holders in the Lords.
The Review Body on Top Salaries recommended this year that the Peers' expenses allowance be increased by about 11 per cent. and the office-holders' secretarial allowance by about 8 per cent. However, as I said in my written reply to a Parliamentary Question from my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson on 15th May, the Government consider that, at a time when pay increases for public servants are being held within cash limits of 6 per cent., increases in parliamentary allowances should be kept within the same limit. We are accordingly proposing that each element of the Peers' expenses allowance and the office holders'

123
secretarial allowance should be increased by 6 per cent. That is the same percentage increase as for the secretarial allowance in another place.
The new rates set out in the Motion are as follows. For Peers who necessarily have to use overnight accommodation away from their usual residence, a daily—perhaps I should say a nightly—limit of £24.40. For day subsistence—that is, to cover meals and incidental travel—the limit will be £11.65. Secretarial costs, postage and certain additional expenses as defined in the Review Body's 9th Report may be met within a limit of £10.60 a day treated cumulatively—in other words, noble Lords may arrange to recover expenditure over a period.
These daily limits together total £46.65 but, as your Lordships know, only those who actually have to incur overnight expenses in London because of parliamentary duties are eligible to claim all three elements. Other Peers are restricted to the £22.25 total provided under the second two categories. As in the past, the various rates are maxima within which Members of this House may claim those sums actually spent in attending to their parliamentary duties. The Government propose that the increase in the allowance will take effect from 1st July 1981. Ministers and office-holders in this House can claim at the moment up to a limit of £1,175 per annum towards the cost of the secretarial assistance needed to deal with the non-departmental correspondence. The Government propose that this should be increased to £1,250 per annum with effect from 1st July 1981.
Before leaving this particular Motion, I should point out that when I first announced these increases in my answer to the Question from my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, I am afraid I incorrectly described the office-holder's secretarial allowance as a Peer's secretarial allowance. The majority of Peers may, of course, reclaim some secretarial expenses as one of the elements included in the Peers' expenses allowance. The allowance of £1,250 per annum is, as it always has been, strictly for Ministers and other office-holders who are not entitled to the Peers' expenses allowance.
The second Motion seeks the approval of this House to the draft of the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1981. This order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which, in its 22nd report, indicated that it had no special point to draw to the attention of the House.
The pay of Ministers, like that of MPs, has been complicated by the staging of previous settlements. Ministers and the other office-holders referred to in the order have had the salary increases proposed for them by the Review Body in 1979 implemented in three separate stages. The first stage was paid in 1979, the second in 1980 and the third is due this year. In 1980 the Review Body recommended that the second and third stages should be increased by 14·6 per cent. As part of our policy of pay restraint in the public sector, the Government decided to reduce this increase. As a result all Ministers and office holders except Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney General had their second and third stages increased by 9·6 per cent. in 1980. Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney General had only a 5 per cent. increase.
124
Under the terms of the Order in Council approved by Parliament last year, Ministers and other officeholders will automatically receive their third stage increase, as updated in 1980, with effect from 13th June 1981. The Government are proposing a 6 per cent. increase in the generality of Ministerial salaries this year. This will give most Ministers salaries slightly above the levels recommended as appropriate by the Review Body in 1980. Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney General will, however, still be below these levels.
The press and the media generally have tended to combine the third stage increase with the additional 6 per cent. we are proposing for this year, thus claiming that Ministers are getting an increase of over 18 per cent. But the fact is that the third stage increase only brings Ministerial salaries to the levels appropriate in 1980, and in terms of the 1981 settlement—the only matter with which the order now before the House is concerned (the new money, as it were)—the increase is only 6 per cent. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wished to continue to be paid at the same rate as their Cabinet colleagues.
There has for long been a special problem, as the House knows well, over the salaries of Ministers in the House of Lords, in that, unlike their colleagues in another place, they do not receive any salary in respect of their parliamentary duties. I told the House that the Government propose to consider what arrangement could be made to take account of this problem.
As things stand, the difference in the total remuneration received by Ministers in the Lords and those in the Commons is out of all proportion to the differences in their duties, and the pay of Lords Ministers is not commensurate with their responsibilities. When this matter has been raised at Question Time, notably by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I have noticed that your Lordships have expressed understanding of this anomaly and a sympathetic desire to see it removed.
We now propose to make arrangements for the Ministerial salaries of Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and other office-holders in this House to be increased by £3,500 over and above the general increases which I have already described. This addition to their remuneration is rather less than half the amount of the parliamentary salary payable to Ministers in the House of Commons.
The way this will be achieved differs slightly for different groups. In the case of Ministers of State, your Lordships 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 this House are paid at the top of this range, which runs from £19,775 to £23,275, while Ministers of State in another place 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 prescribed under the Act to £18,600. Parliamentary Secretaries in this House will be paid this maximum, while those in another place will get £3,500 less. The salaries of all other paid office-holders in

125
the House of Lords, other than Cabinet Ministers, have been set in the draft order at £3,500 above the third stage levels approved last year, and increased by this year's 6 per cent. The Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees will also have their salaries increased by £3,500. I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to your Lordships as a satisfactory and proper way of dealing with this problem. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the proposal to raise, for expenses incurred after 30th June 1981, the limits on the expenses which Lords may recover under the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 so as to make the limits—

(a) for paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) of the Resolution (day subsistence and incidental travel) £11·65 for each day of attendance;

(b) for paragraph 1(c) (overnight subsistence) £24·40 for each day of attendance;

(c) for paragraph 1(d) (secretarial allowance) £10·60 multiplied by the number of days of attendance falling within paragraph 1(a) or 1(b);

(d) for paragraph (3) (office-holders' secretarial allowance) £1,250 in any year.

—(Lord Soames.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords on behalf of the Opposition, may I thank the noble Lord for his Statement. I think that this will be welcomed and what he has achieved will be important to the efficiency of this House.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I raised a question earlier with the Lord President of the Council regarding the Opposition Front Bench. Again, I am very disappointed that there has been no extra remuneration provided for the Opposition Front Bench as there should have been.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as I have been, I am afraid, from time to time something of a nuisance to my noble friend the Lord President, on the subject of the remuneration of junior and middle-grade Ministers in this House, I think it would be both ungracious and ungenerous if I did not express the gratitude that I think many of us feel to him for the very great efforts which he has made—now successfully—to deal with what was a very real problem.
It was not only a problem that affected certain individuals very harshly and very unfairly; it was a problem that was creating real difficulties for the operation of this House and for the future successful conduct of business here. I have some experience of the difficulties that a departmental Minister faces in getting through a change of this kind—small in financial terms, but involving quite important questions of principle—and I should, therefore, particularly like to thank and congratulate my noble friend the Lord President on his success and say to him that it seems to me he has substantially remedied a considerable evil and, therefore, done this House good service.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I rise to ask my noble friend Lord Soames, as Leader of the House, whether he is concerned that the report underlying his Motion—albeit inadvertently—gives comfort to those who believe that, at best, your Lordships' House is a kind of senatorial annex to the real Parliament that sits in another part of the Palace of Westminster, for this report constantly refers to "Members of Parliament" when, in fact, it means Members of the House of Commons. My concern is that, when official Government publications perpetuate this solecism, as they invariably do, one must ask the qeustion: what hope for the press and what hope for the public?
Your Lordships will have noted that the height of absurdity is reached in the final sentence of the report, which must have astonished my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern as much as it did me. I reads:
"The present Lord Advocate is not a Member of Parliament".
Rightly or wrongly, I believe that the dignity of your Lordships' House, as the upper House of Parliament, is insidiously eroded by this practice.
Lord Soames: Well, my Lords, I take my noble friend's point, but I have always been one who does not believe that you increase your dignity by standing on it. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that my noble friend's wise words will be paid attention to by the Review Body when they write their next report. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I would say that those members of the opposition Front Bench who are officeholders are, of course, included in this—it would be a mistake to think otherwise—but only those who are office-holders, as has been traditionally the custom in your Lordships' House. In answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, all I can say is that I should like to thank him very much for his kind words and that it has been possible to rectify this only thanks to the determination and co-operation of many, both in this House and notably, of course, among my colleagues.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1981
3.26 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved.—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill some weeks ago, I acknowledged that its provisions covered a series of diverse matters affecting local authorities in Scotland, and the wide-ranging nature of our subsequent discussions has confirmed

127
its character as a genuine miscellaneous provisions Bill. A considerable amount of time has been spent discussing Part II, which deals with rate support grant and the connected provisions relating to reduction of rate poundages and restrictions on borrowing. This reflects the great importance which your Lordships rightly attach to the provision of services to the public and the levels of public expenditure and taxation entailed in providing these services.
Your Lordships will recall that last week, during Report stage, I intimated my right honourable friend's intention to issue preliminary notices soon to certain local authorities in Scotland, indicating that the expenditure which they are planning to incur in 1981–82 appeared to him to be excessive and unreasonable within the terms specified in the Bill, and to inform them of his reasons for coming to that view. That notice was issued last week, shortly after my statement to the House, to seven local authorities which appeared to my right honourable friend to offer prima facie the most serious and urgent instances of excessive and unreasonable planned expenditure. As I made clear at the time, the Secretary of State may decide to exercise the powers in the Bill, if they are granted to him, in respect of other authorities later in the current financial year.
The overall effect of the provisions in Part II is that any authority for whom a reduction in rate support grant is proposed will have to choose between maintaining and reducing its planned expenditure for the current year. If it elects the former course it will, subject to the granting of the necessary powers by Parliament, and approval of the formal report to the House of Commons, suffer a substantial reduction in the income it had assumed would be forthcoming from rate support grant. A reduction in planned expenditure, on the other hand, could—if my right honourable friend were persuaded that the local authority's amended proposals were genuine and would be duly implemented—avoid such action. In that latter case, it would be considered firm evidence of interest if the authority were to exercise the discretionary power available in the Bill and reduce the rate fixed for the current year. This would, in effect, allow reimbursement to the ratepayers—domestic, commercial and industrial—in the course of the year 1981–82. My right honourable friend would also accept a reduction in actual expenditure without any reduction in the actual rate poundage, but this would result in the accumulation of balances to be taken into account for the benefit of ratepayers when next year's rate is fixed. But I must emphasise that, unless the authorities concerned proceed without delay to revise their budgets for the current year in a satisfactory manner, my right honourable friend will feel obliged to press for the approval by another place of his formal report and thereafter to proceed to reduce the amount of grant payable to the authority concerned. It is only fair that these authorities be given the maximum notice and, as appropriate, the maximum opportunity to make representations and reconsider spending plans. Fairness to the authorities concerned was a major consideration by my right honourable friend in issuing the notices I mentioned earlier.
Fairness to the authority is also a main consideration
128
in assessing whether an authority's spending plans appear to be excessive and unreasonable and whether any reduction in grant should therefore be proposed. In criticising the Bill, noble Lords opposite have given some prominence in debate to the indicative guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. This may have tended to give a false impression of the degree to which these guidelines will be used as a measure of whether planned expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. My right honourable friend has assured the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—and similar assurances have been given in the course of discussion of earlier stages of the Bill—that, although regard will be had to guidelines, they will not be the sole criterion employed by the Secretary of State in assessing spending plans. The existing provisions in the 1966 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to an authority's financial and other relevant circumstances. The Bill repeats this requirement and, in the interests of local authorities, adds other matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard.
I do not pretend that the measures in the Bill are palatable. But the Government have no reason to apologise for their introduction. My right honourable friend was most reluctant to bring the measures forward. Repeatedly he and other Ministers explained the need to reduce public spending and the important part local authorities have to play in the fight against inflation. In seeking to play his part in restoring the economy of the nation, the Secretary of State has done his utmost to be fair in his dealings with local authorities. He will continue to be fair. It is now up to local authorities to respond positively in a reasonable manner and, even at this stage, to do all they can to allow the Secretary of State to mitigate, if not obviate, use of the powers to reduce grant which he is seeking in this Bill.
I promised in the course of the Report stage debate to reflect on the question of the designation by local authorities of access officers to act as liaison officers and co-ordinators on matters relating to access to buildings by disabled people. Since then I have been able to establish that all but two of the authorities which exercise planning and building control functions have responded to the recommendation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities either by designating access officers or identifying a point of contact on access questions. In general those designated are staff of building control departments who are versed in the skills of reading plans and drawings and well qualified to take a view on questions relating to access for disabled people. The main value of this arrangement, it seems to me, lies in the fact that there is now in each of the authorities in question a single readily available source of advice on access problems. While the two authorities which have not agreed to make such an arrangement—Dumfries and Galloway Region and Gordon District—may well take the view that they already make adequate provision for the needs of disabled people to be considered, I think it important that there should be a clearly identified point of contact on questions of access for disabled people in all authorities which exercise planning and building control responsibilities. I propose, therefore, to have arrangements made for the question of the

129
attitude adopted by these two authorities to be considered further with the Convention.
That said, it seems to me that it would have been both inappropriate and unnecessary, in the light of what has been achieved by voluntary means, for us to seek to impose a statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland to designate access officers, simply to oblige two authorities out of the 50 which exercise planning and building control functions to move into line. Quite apart from the fact that such a measure could not have been reconciled with the general policy of legislating to require local authorities to make particular appointments only where this is regarded as being absolutely essential, it would have been insulting to the many authorities which have made appropriate arrangements without any hint of pressure from the Government. I am very glad, therefore, that the amendment which sought to impose this statutory obligation was not pressed.
We propose to draw attention to the arrangements which have been made for designating access officers in the forthcoming circular to local authorities on the access provisions of the Bill. To cover the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), at Report stage, the circular will also make it clear that the provision of access around and between buildings—for example, access from a car park to a building—may be a material consideration to be taken into account by a planning authority in considering an application for planning permission. The circular will now be redrafted to take account of points made during the consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House and will then be sent to COSLA and the Scottish Council on Disability for comment before being finalised. I should also be glad to send copies of the draft to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, should they wish to have the opportunity of contributing their wisdom on the matter.
Finally, your Lordships may wish me to say something about the Government's intentions as regards bringing into operation the new provisions on access which I moved at Report stage. The timing of the appointed day measure will depend on the speed with which progress is made on the consultations with interested parties which are a necessary preliminary to the making of the regulations to prescribe the procedure to be followed and the adjudicating body. However, we recognise the attraction of bringing this new measure into operation during the International Year of Disabled People and will make every effort to achieve this.
At the conclusion of this stage of the Bill I should like to express my personal thanks to Lord Lyell, for his assistance to me. I should like to express my thanks to all the members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to our debates. I include in this tribute the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Hughes, though there were perhaps relatively few points on which we managed to reach agreement with each other.
Lord Ross of Marnock: There was none, my Lords.
The Earl of Mansfield: Nevertheless, I am sure that
130
the noble Lords deserve thanks from all sides of the House for their hard work in ensuring that the House gave the Bill a thorough examination. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for the very constructive manner in which they assisted the Government in making this Bill something that I believe will be of very considerable help to the disabled in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.38 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, as one who has not been thanked for his contribution, I should like to take this opportunity to say that we regretted the entry of this Bill into your Lordships' House and we regret even more its departure more or less unamended. I moved an amendment on at least two stages in the Bill, but unfortunately it was not incorporated, and therefore for some time to come the people of Scotland will still be at risk from burst water mains without any hope of compensation. However, what we really regret about this Bill is the way in which it illustrates a lack of feeling by the Government for the real efforts which have been made by local authorities throughout Scotland to economise in these difficult times. The difficulty local authorities face is in trying to economise in these times in both saving money and discharging their obligations. That is not easy to do, but it has been tackled with considerable vigour by most local authorities in Scotland.
If the noble Earl the Minister found it in his heart to be sorry for those local authorities who had not got around to appointing access officers for the disabled, and to feel tender in his heart, not liking in any way to insult other local authorities who might have appointed access officers, it is a pity that this same tenderness was not shown towards the willing local authorities of Scotland who have been trying hard to grapple with the problem of delivering services to the ratepayers and to the people in their regions and districts, in the light of the difficult economic scene and the uncertainty of what help they are going to receive from the Government to do so.
It is a pity that it is thought necessary by Her Majesty's Government to take a Bill through Parliament and to put lead into the end of their big stick. However, they have thought it necessary to do so. They have brought it to Parliament. We on these Benches have tried at least to seek some easement of the attacks which are likely to be mounted upon local authorities. We have shown the difficulties which lie ahead. Now that the Bill is likely to be passed, I can only hope that Her Majesty's Government, and in particular the Scottish Office, will use the big stick with which they have now been provided with the utmost care and discrimination: that they will not lay about themselves but will seek to re-establish a rapport between central Government and local government. Only if there is a true rapport between central Government and local government will economies successfully be made, will the administration of services to the people be successfully carried out. I hope that any bitterness which may be felt over some of the measures

131
which it has been thought necessary to introduce may not prove to be so justified as some of us feel it may be.
We are grateful for some of the additions which have been made to existing legislation by some of the miscellaneous provisions contained in the Bill. We are grateful that after pressure, very largely in your Lordships' House, the disabled in this International Year of Disabled People are to get a very useful piece of recognition. I am also pleased to hear the assurances which the noble Earl the Minister has given about the talks which are to take place over access officers and the implementation of the new clause which was added to the Bill at Report stage. When the dust has settled from the debate over this Bill, I hope that what will come out of it will be an understanding of the excellent job which local authorities throughout Scotland are doing, in difficult circumstances, for the people whom they seek to serve.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his sturdy defence of the Bill and for the painstaking explanations which he has given as points have been raised. Most of the controvery related to the financial clauses, the bulk of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, showed great stamina in arguing vigorously the case against the Government's proposals. In doing so, he did not overlook or miss any point which could be made.
I welcome the additions which have been made to the Bill concerning access to public buildings for disabled people. A great advance has been made in this Bill. It is a breakthrough. The proceedings on this clause at both Committee stage and Report were very late at night, but in the International Year of Disabled People it is appropriate that the new clause, Clause 37, should have been added to the Bill. I am chairman for Scotland of the International Year. The other three chairmen are not in Parliament, but I meet from time to time the chairmen for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I know that they also will welcome what is being done.
The Government eventually agreed to add a clause on the lines of one tabled by me at the Committee stage. It applies in this Bill to Scotland, but the Government have undertaken to do the same for the other three parts of the United Kingdom, in a Private Member's Bill before this House for England and Wales and in separate legislation for Northern Ireland. It is right that I should acknowledge that and thank the Government, and I am very glad to do so.
When I speak of access I am of course referring to public buildings, to the need for ramps or lifts rather than steps—even two or three steps can obstruct a wheelchair—for doors to be wide enough to let wheelchairs through, for handrails and other equipment both inside and outside buildings for other disabled people. We have been waiting 11 years for this advance and it has been recommended and pressed by the leading bodies representing disabled people. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 legislated for public buildings to have access arrangements but there was no way of enforcing this legislation. The person responsible could plead that it was not
132
practicable or reasonable, and there was no way of testing that plea.
This new clause, Clause 37, enables the Secretary of State to identify a body, or bodies, which will have the task of determining whether it is both practicable and reasonable to incorporate proper access arrangements in new buildings to be used by the public. These new buildings can be privately owned, such as shops, as well as publicly owned buildings. In future, the test will have to be carried out.
To incorporate this clause in the Bill was, I know, thoroughly inconvenient for the Government and also for the various departments concerned. Indeed, it has made the Bill even more miscellaneous. There have been numerous difficulties about this, in particular about dealing, as this Bill does, with one part of the United Kingdom. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield for the amount of work he must have done in order to enable this aspect to be brought in under this Bill. In 1981 we can applaud the fact that this is being carried out. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation which could be passed for disabled people in the International Year of Disabled People.
3.49 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has just spoken, I too would like to join in thanking the noble Earl the Minister for New Clause 37 which we all hope will, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, put some teeth into the access provisions of the 1970 Act. Recently an article in the Sunday Times described a certain Private Member's Bill concerning disabled people as having lost its gums and its teeth. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on putting back some of the teeth into this Bill. I hope that as it proceeds through your Lordships' House further holes will be filled so that by the time it leaves us it will be a presentable Bill.
So far as access officers are concerned, each local authority will in any case have to designate someone to oversee the enforcement of New Clause 37. If there are to be improvements to existing buildings, then this person who is to be designated could be of tremendous help. I did not press my amendment on this point because all but two local authorities in Scotland already have these people, but England and Wales are lagging behind and I hope to return to this point before long. Again, I thank the noble Earl.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, as one whose principal overt concern with this Bill was to see strengthened the provisions of the original Clause 36, I should simply like to express my appreciation of the noble Earl's willingness to accept the need for this and most wholeheartedly to add my appreciation of his efforts in that direction to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for not being present during the Report stage. Four years ago I accepted an invitation to be present and to speak at a gathering in Scotland which occurred on 2nd June and I really felt that after four years only a fortnight's notice of absence would

133
be a little too short. Therefore, I am afraid that I am going to take up one or two minutes of your Lordships' time because I still have one or two points that I should like to make.
At Second Reading I explained my reasons for believing that Part II of this Bill, if enacted, would kill the purposes of local government as we have been proud to know it until the present time. Since expressing that view I have listened to the arguments put forward in support of my belief by other noble Lords and to the explanations and counter-arguments of the noble Earl the Minister of State, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I listened very carefully throughout the Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, and I have read with the very greatest care of the progress of the Bill at Report stage. I have also read and re-read on several different occasions the Official Report of the proceedings throughout the whole of each of the three stages of the Bill. I have finally and sadly come to the conclusion that I dislike Part II of this Bill even more now than I have done previously.
If the answers given to the matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Hughes, by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and indeed by myself, are the best answers available to the Government, then I think one can reasonably submit that the ghost of local government irresponsibility has been well and truly laid within the pages of the Official Report, while the charge from our quarter of a lack of control of central Government spending has not even begun to be answered.
If it is not over-presumptuous for a Member of your Lordships' House who has never held office, let alone high office, to thank one who has and who has done so with distinction, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for using so forcefully the contents of my very humble notes when addressing himself to the evils of Clause 14 at Report stage. I have read that the noble Lord appears to have been chided by the noble Earl the Minister of State for taking 21 minutes to move his amendment. Speaking for myself—and, I know for certain, for many others who still give service in local government in Scotland—I do not believe that 21 minutes was a moment too long in which to point out to the Government the areas in which central Government have placed enormous additional burdens and duties upon local government since reorganisation: burdens and duties which necessarily cost money to implement, which we are now told is excessive and unreasonable expenditure. Indeed, it is perhaps just as well for the noble Earl that I had to be in Scotland at Report, for although it may have seemed a very long list to him and a very long 21 minutes, in fact the noble Lord, Lord Ross, used only a small part of the total number of additional duties with which I furnished him to aid his case.
As your Lordships are only too well aware, Part II is the main plank of this Bill and I can only assume that since no noble Lords spoke in favour of it the deafening silence from behind and beside the Minister and his two noble colleagues is a better indication of the feelings of your Lordships' House than the dragooned votes that supported it. So before leaving this particular area of the field I will repeat, quite simply, my earnest contention
134
that when 59 out of 65 of Scotland's local authorities are unable to meet the guidelines by many percentage points it is a sure indication that the Government are blind to the real cost of providing the services encouraged by themselves and expected by the people. There may be a temptation for the noble Earl to reply that these duties are not all encouraged by the Government, to which I should have to answer that while they remain within the law the Government, by implication, maintain an attitude of encouragement.
During the Committee stage when I pointed this out to the Minister on a point of interjection, and said that councils were acting within the law, the noble Earl replied, "And we are going to change the law". But, my Lords, the effect of this Bill is not to alter the law one iota with regard to the responsibilities in law of local government. To suggest that it did would be thoroughly dishonest and I know the noble Earl far too well to suspect him of being even remotely associated with anything dishonest.
So what we are being asked to do here today is not to change any of the laws of requirement but to add a law which in effect changes the house rules. It is becoming like a game of cards in which the rules are well known to all the players until the host, on a whim—and to his advantage—suddenly introduces a house rule to suit his own convenience. This would be totally unacceptable within your Lordships' homes, and to my mind therefore it should be totally unacceptable to your Lordships' House. It is indeed not at all a pleasant thought.
It is also not a very pleasant thought because at this moment we are as a nation struggling to regain our economic base, and anybody who has, unselfishly, the interests of our nation at heart, should therefore be wishing the Government well. The Government should be wished well, irrespective of political persuasion.
No persons in local government, or indeed outside it, can possibly challenge the Government's inalienable right to control expenditure. That is part of the democratic process, and long may it last. But the democratic process is part and parcel of our unwritten constitution, and that constitution is based upon two elected authorities within the United Kingdom, central Government and local government. Up until this moment, this has been recognised as a precious relationship; it is certainly a brittle relationship and it has always been a delicate relationship. That is why successive Governments have striven to treasure it and to nurture it.
To this end, central Government has in the past, rightly, had a deep concern for overall general points of expenditure, which includes the expenditure of local government in general terms, while local government, being equally answerable to the electorate, has within the powers vested in it had an equal concern over the implementation of its independent authority. The lifeblood of local government is its independence. That independence creates that sense of responsibility which, in partnership with central Government, is the crux of our unwritten constitution. But now central Government, within this Bill, is moving from the general to the particular spending of particular authorities, and I am saying to your Lordships with all the sincerity at my command that this move is dangerous. The move will challenge the pride, and it will erode,

135
not strengthen, the responsibility, of local government.
If central Government are to execute this course of action, I must humbly warn that the reaction of the local authorities to direct control will be a growing sense of instability, leading quite possibly to an irresponsibility hitherto unimagined and on such a scale that we shall lose for all time our constitution, which, as I have already said, is very dear and precious to us. The message from each local authority north of the Border is both loud and clear, and it can be taken directly from those words which surround the thistle as the emblem of Scotland, "Nemo me impune lacessit"; and when that message is the cry of Scotland is it ever, ever, too late for a Government at Westminster to think again? I think it is not, and I find it impossible to support this Bill.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, there must be very few Bills of this importance, of this complexity, and so open to the amendment of so many facets, that have gone through this House without amendment. Well, one amendment. I am the first to praise the organising ability and the stamina of those who, at very considerable inconvenience to themselves, stayed until about a quarter to one one morning; they were able to impress upon the Government that if they did not at least make a promise and hold to that promise they would be defeated, as they would have been that night. That is the only thing that has been done on this Bill. There must be very few Bills in respect of which that kind of thing has ever happened, even in this House.
As a relative newcomer to this place, what staggered me was that we have three or four ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland sitting on the other side of the House. We have Ministers of State, we have people who represent or come from territorial parts of Scotland. What was the contribution they made to the ongoing of this Bill? On Second Reading, not one of them spoke; on Committee stage, the only speeches that were made were made almost by accident. I think there was one noble Lord who did not like the rates he was paying, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said a word or two, not to the credit of the Government, about valuation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way; it is very kind of him. I think I am included among the former Secretaries of State for Scotland. I must record that I did speak on Second Reading, and I did also speak at the Committee stage.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, my recollection is that when we came to that part of the Committee stage, the noble Lord was not here. If he spoke, I will gladly withdraw. My memory is fairly good, and I was here during the whole proceedings. The only contribution we got at Report stage was, I think, from the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, who spoke about Strathclyde and must be very disappointed that Strathclyde is one of the good authorities and not one of the bad authorities, as he expected.
This Bill opened up, or could have opened up,
136
every single facet of local government—police, education, everything was there—and the amount of interest on that side of the House was nil. If Lord Campbell of Croy spoke, he spoke only about the disabled part, which was not in the Bill at all at the start; it was a Labour Member in the other place who brought it into the Bill, and he would have gone further, but the Government said no. So far as the Minister of State is concerned, he has let his side down, because he was only given the simple instruction, "no amendments". It is the same kind of instruction which has been given on the Forestry Bill, although the pressures here have changed his mind about that, too, but we shall come to that later in the day.
Why no amendments? Because they are taking action now in respect of rate support grant for the year 1981–82; that year will probably be about a third of the way through when they get the Bill, because now, thanks to the disabled lobby, it has to go to another place and come back. I think they hope to do that fairly quickly this week. Then they have to go through the procedures of Clause 14, which means informing local authorities against whom action is going to be taken, and remember that the Government have already given them until the end of July to reply in respect of a preliminary action. I do not know what date in July it will be, but I hope that it will not be the 29th. It is a nice wedding present for the local authorities in Scotland, is it not? After the reply comes back they must draw up a report and include in that report the representations of the local authorities. Then they must bring a report and move a resolution asking the House of Commons to agree with what they are going to do.
That will bring us to about the month of October. If only they could have got this done in about six or seven weeks! But in October they will tell the local authorities in Scotland whom they select. And they will have the support eventually of the House of Commons, because this is the last "say" that we shall have about it. It is the Commons who will approve the report or otherwise. They will expect the Lothian Authority—and I hold no brief for them to save £53 million during the rest of the year between November and April. They have denied them the right to borrow to tide themselves over. They have tied them up. The noble Lord says that he hopes for co-operation. You cannot have proper government in Scotland without co-operation. What chance have you of co-operation when you tie somebody up, knock them down and kick them in the teeth? That is not exactly the recipe for getting co-operation.
What will the timetable be? I consider that this is the worst Bill that I have ever known from the point of view of practicability as well as fairness. Local government in Scotland will get into the most awful mess. None of the local authorities know where they are at present. We had a Statement from the Secretary of State the other day to the effect that he will take action in respect of all the local authorities. I think he said that he was going to cut off £200 million and that he was going to do that by means of the rate support grant formula—that is the only way he can do it touching them all. However, that can only be reduced if he gets at them selectively with the powers in the Bill that we are now asked to pass, and he says

137
that he might need the two. So every local authority in Scotland has doubts as to what will happen to them and what monies they will have. It does not finish there. He is now going to use powers that have never been there.
I want to apologise—I see that he is not here—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. His party showed only a passing interest and that was in the matter of disablement and access. I think that at one point I said that the 1966 Act was a consolidation Act: it was not a consolidation Act at all, it was the Act that introduced the new rate support grant formula of needs, resources, et cetera. But the power that was used to build up Clause 14 has been in statutes since before the war and has never been used. The Government imply that they will use it now in respect of expenditures, not for the current year but for last year, and suggest that they will take away about £60 million. Unless they use that power they will use the Rate Support Grant Increase Order which means that they will penalise every authority. According to the distribution formula they will all have to bear their share rather than those who caused the trouble.
However, the matter does not end there. Anyone who paid attention to the statement will know that we are promised further legislation both in England and Wales, and in Scotland to hammer the local authorities still further next year. And we expect co-operation? We expect stable Government? In the Reform of Local Government in Scotland it says:
"Local authorities form a vital part of the nation's democracy and a modern and effective system of local government is essential to achieve the Government's aims of freedom and responsibility at all levels of society".
I am sure that those words will ring familiarly in the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because those are the opening words of the Reform of Local Government in Scotland presented in 1971. As a Secretary of State one has to take responsibility for the Bills that become Acts of Parliament, and the noble Lord was responsible for the Bill dealing with the reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1973. But the man who took it through Committee was the present Secretary of State. He takes responsibility now for this modern, effective system of local government essential to achieve the Government's aim of freedoms and responsibilities. They constantly say:
"local government has become too dependent on central Government, with an inevitable loss of local control over local affairs".
What is the result of this Bill? In respect of finance local government is completely in the hands of central Government. They are going to determine what the expenditures will be—not just over the whole lot because we have it from Mr. Rifkind in another place that it may be that one particular part of local government expenditure concerns them, and they have to say that in the report to the House of Commons. It has become a mockery and we have reached a very parlous state and a very dangerous state, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has said.
There is pride in local government. Tributes have been paid to the dedication of the men concerned and the ability of public servants. It is all in this document written by a Conservative Secretary of State. Where is it now? Did those men suddenly lose their public
138
spirit? Did those local government services suddenly lack their abilities? Of course they did not. The nub of the whole matter is the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. If you set unrealistically low guidelines—and anyone who knows anything about the rate support grant knows how it is done and that you determine reckonable expenditure, what it should be for the coming year although it used to be for two years—then it will not be attained or contained by the local authorities: their expenditures are bound to be above it. If further you reduce the percentage that the Government pay to meet their share of the local expenditures then that will be another spur. As regards Scotland it has varied because it depends who was Secretary of State, I suppose; but in the past two years it has gone down and it is now at the lowest it has been for a long time. It was reduced last year and reduced again this year. If you are to spend what you should spend, inevitably your rates will go up. Then along comes the Secretary of State who says, "Your rates are too high. You are spending too much".
We had a comparison from the noble Lord on Second Reading—the one referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, earlier. That comparison concerned how extravagent local authorities have been since 1971 as against the Government forgetting to tell us that during that time the school-leaving age was raised by a Conservative Government, expenditures had to be curbed, additional teachers were needed in secondary schools and new schools had to be built. That was compared with what is actually being talked about now. Since 1974–75 local government expenditure in aggregate has gone down. Yet there are services which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, exclusive of local government, which have gone up. The people who have been spending more money are the Government themselves.
So I want to know just exactly what will happen in local government. What do the Government expect of local government—that it will suddenly conform and do the impossible in the six months or so that are left? How will local government conduct any negotiations with the Secretary of State in respect of next year's rate support grant?—because such negotiations are usually completed by the end of the year. All this is to happen in the month of August. It is just not on. It is chaos, and that is what the Government have created. They set out deliberately to have this confrontation, arising from how they spoke. No wonder the leader published in The Scotsman of 27th May and its leader of 5th of June say:
"… there is no evidence to suggest widespread extravagance on a scale that would justify the damage that Mr. Younger is doing to local government and the worse straits he threatens to impose on it.".
If the Minister of State looks back on his parliamentary career, as some have to eventually, I do not think that he will call this his proudest moment. We still remember someone in Scottish history whom we called the "Hammer of the Scots". At least he was an Englishman—and that was Edward himself. But to think that a Scotsman should put himself in the position of becoming the puppet of the Treasury! because this comes from the Treasury. It seems that if England does it, Scotland must do it too. If Mr. Heseltine makes a Statement one day, the Secretary of State

139
makes a Statement the next day. This is what has happened.
When we consider that this House as much as the other place placed all the additional responsibilities on local government, we should be defending local government and not attacking it. This is one of the worst day's work that we have had from this Government. We are promised more next year. I asked the noble Earl, a question the other day but received no answer. I want to allow the House to judge as to which local government, in a prima facie way anyway, is extravagant. Will the Minister list the budgets for the proposals of all the Scottish local authorities—all 65 of them—and will he mark in red ink the ones against which at the moment he will take action? There is not the slightest doubt that there are others in that list of 65 which could have higher and more expensive budgets. It may well be that they can explain it, but then so can Dumbarton explain its expenditure, and the same applies to Dundee. We used to reckon—and I think that it was worked out by COSLA—that Cumnock and Doon Valley local authority spent less per head of population than any other comparable local authority. But they have been blacklisted; they are on the hit list for £450,000.
It is quite inconceivable how the Government reach these conclusions, even from the powers that they take in this Bill and which eventually they will have to prove. Some local authorities they will drop, but the chances are that they are only after one local authority. One local authority has offended them, so we get all this armoury of powers to deal with it.
Perhaps I may remind the disablement lobby of the answer that they received (they are too easily satisfied) from the Minister of State just now about the designation of access officers. He said that only two local authorities are backsliders. I doubt whether, even in their opinion, there are two local authorities who are serious backsliders in relation to expenditure. However, the Minister said that it did not need to be included because as there are only two, they could deal with that. As regards Scottish local authorities, are there two? Probably there are two at the most. But because there are these two, we must build up this armoury of powers. It does not make sense. The Minister cannot have it both ways—persuading the people who are interested in disablement to withdraw their amendments or their new clauses as against what he is prepared to do to a minimum of Scottish local authorities.
I hope that the Government will think again. I gave them the chance during the debate to think again; at least I applied my mind to it. Local democracy means that the local people decide. I suggested to the Government that they should hold a local referendum. I notice that, according to one new Scottish Sunday newspaper, Mr. Heseltine is thinking about this idea. Why not?—the Minister could do it even now on Third Reading with a manuscript amendment. He has taken a power to delay the valuation. Why does he not take power to advance the next elections so that instead of waiting three or four years, the Secretary of State can say that there will be an election next May to find out what the local people think about this. He thinks that the local people are concerned only
140
about the actual rates. There is no reason why he could not take that power. We are promised legislation again next year by the Secretary of State and by the Minister of State repeating the Statement here, so we could learn what the local people think about this. That is the true discipline upon local authorities.
If local democracy works, then we must leave the local people to deal with recalcitrant local authorities; but in many cases you will find that the local authority will have the support of its people, because this means that there will be fewer services for the disabled. We passed a Bill within the last year which, I am very glad to say, had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others. It was about according the same facilities of subsidised transport in Scotland to the handicapped and to the blind. That cost Glasgow £300,000, if not more; perhaps £500,000. We should not be doing that if we are to allow the Government to come back and clobber local government for having spent the money and obeyed the dictates of Parliament. That is what will happen. I have seen a list of things that Glasgow and Strathclyde have rejected; options that were laid before them, It will cut subsidised transport, school transport, and meals for the elderly; it will mean closing residential homes, and all because the Government failed to give a realistic figure in relation to reckonable expenditure, and failed to give adequate support to the local authorities. We should have a resolution stating the unreasonableness of the Government, because in regard to Scottish local authorities as a whole this Government have been very unreasonable indeed.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and one appreciates that he has immense experience of all kinds of Government, particularly of government in Scotland. But I must protest at some of the remarks he made. First, he said that those of us on this side of the House did not support our noble friend Lord Mansfield. I made as strong a speech as I could on Second Reading, which was countered by my noble friend Lord Minto. Both of us live in the same area and, as I think I told your Lordships, he has succeeded me on the regional council. On this particular Bill we differ and there is no reason why we should not: after all, we differ from our friends in many ways. But that does not make me any less friendly towards him.
In fact, we on this side played an active part in the debates. As your Lordships know, on a Government Bill, supporters of the Government have to limit their speeches because to do otherwise only prolongs discussion on the Bill. Therefore, many of us have tried to be as economical as possible in speaking. That does not mean that we do not support the Government. The only thing that happened to both the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and me was that we were involved on the day of the Second Reading in exactly the same engagement in the Borders. About four years ago, plans for a rally of the Elliot clan were made. There were people from all over the world there, from Canada, Australia, USA and elsewhere. We had promised to be there and to speak, and we really could not cancel. Otherwise I certainly would have come

141
down here if I had thought I could be any help to my noble friend Lord Mansfield on the Report stage.
We are all of us extremely anxious that this Bill should be a success. I was for years on the county council, and during those years we did not have this inflation. We did not have this enormous difficulty in finding the money we needed for everything. We were in a much happier position in those 29 years when I was on the Roxburgh County Council than the county councillors are today. We were able to do things which I think and hope were of great assistance to our supporters and the voters in the areas in which we lived.
But today, the situation is different and we have to realise that, and we all do realise it. What is more, the voters realise it. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has spoken about all of the people who he thinks are dead against this legislation, I have had ever so many people write and telephone to me saying, "This is what we want. We want to have some restrictions on the amount of money that people have to pay".
Of course it is agreeable to spend money. We all love spending money. I love to spend money. I like doing everything I possibly can to help people in every possible way. On this occasion it is not spending money that is helping people; it is economising expenditure that is going to make it possible to achieve the financial recovery of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, whom I admire very much for all the work he has done in his great career in Scotland, has exaggerated the fact that perhaps we did not speak enough on this Bill. Some of us who are equally enthusiastic about local government in Scotland—and I bow to nobody in that—feel very keenly that if my noble friend Lord Mansfield and the Government can bring about a situation in which recovery in Scotland enables us to do all the things we should like to do in future, and increase the services for the people, then we shall have done something really worthwhile.
I am afraid that I speak an awful lot in your Lordships' House, and I am always afraid of boring your Lordships, so I do not speak unless I feel very strongly about something. I had not intended to speak on this Third Reading, but I feel very strongly indeed that we should give the Government all the support we can. There are thousands of people in Scotland who are behind me in all this, and who hope that this Bill will be a success. So I would support my noble friend Lord Mansfield and all that he is trying to do. Hopefully, it will lead to better times, and then we shall be able to do other things as well which we should all like to do.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I shall be extremely brief, but I should just like to say how glad I am that the planning circular will make it clear how essential it is to have an access officer for a local authority, because although we know there are only two local authorities in Scotland who have not designated one I think it is important to have it in black and white. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said at Report stage surely it is the business of Parliament as a whole to make sure that if something is necessary it is done everywhere.
142
My second point is that I want to say how delighted I am to hear the noble Earl say today that the planning circular will make access around, and between, buildings and from, for example, the car park to a building, a material planning consideration, because this is terribly important. We must remember that we are not just dealing with people in wheelchairs but the blind, the ambulant disabled, and everything. It is also helpful to remember that when these considerations are met that the lives of the pram pushers, the parcel carriers, the pregnant, the temporarily disabled and the old are in fact also made much easier. I am very aware that Clauses 36 and 37 are a very small part of this Bill, but I feel that when Clause 37 is implemented, and when we have the strengthened planning circular, it will make a very big difference to the lives of many disabled Scotsmen and women, and so I should like to thank the Minister for making this possible.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it was a very welcome and satisfying moment in your Lordships' House when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, moved his amendment to strengthen the legislation to give better access facilities for disabled people to buildings to which the public are to have access. When the noble Earl went on at Report stage, when discussing his amendment, stating that it is the Government's intention that similar provision should extend to the rest of the country by means of an amendment to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill now in your Lordships' House, I was even more delighted. As many of your Lordships know, especially those who are disabled and know from first-hand experience how important good access is, I should just like to say that it has been a long, hard battle to convince the Government how important this legislation is.
I should like to thank on behalf of all the disabled people who will benefit, all your Lordships who have helped in this matter. This includes our Lord in Heaven, as his intervention was asked for in this very important matter. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the Scottish Office for all they have done. When I speak in Edinburgh at a conference later this year I will not forget to mention the wise decision made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and his department. I shall also do likewise when speaking on the results of the International Year of Disabled People at Edinburgh University, when I speak at a conference there earlier next year.
We have discussed during the passage of this Bill the need for access officers who are expert in access to advise local authorities on these matters. This was fully supported by your Lordships at Report stage. The noble Earl has given an undertaking to encourage the only two local authorities not to have an access officer, to do so. I am greatly encouraged by the many voluntary bodies throughout the country who have become watchdogs, who I am sure will help to see that correct access is not forgotten.
In some parts of the country the Consumer Council has set up and is operating a scrutineering system. Scrutineers inspect the planning lists. The planning lists will show what sort of project is being submitted for approval. The plans are then scrutinised to ensure that adequate access for the disabled is provided.

143
I am sure that co-operation between the statutory and voluntary sectors can only be helpful. I am very pleased that during 1981 your Lordships have been able to improve this Bill to include better provision regarding the needs of the disabled.
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is usually not necessary on a debate such as this for the Minister to reply, but I think I should in this important debate for two reasons. First, and shortly, to thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses, especially those who are disabled, for the kind words that they have said. There has been a considerable effort by a number of departments in Government to achieve something that would improve this Bill, and I am glad that they have acknowledged that fact and that we have been able to do something which I think in the years ahead will possibly be regarded as a milestone.
The other matters with which I must deal are one or two points that have been made in this debate. Normally if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, makes a bad point I do not always answer it—not that he often does make a bad point, but he is fallible like the rest of us. When he makes a false point, then it is something with which I really have to deal. In this case, he quite unjustifiably insinuated—in fact said directly—that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy had not in fact attended the debates upon this important Bill. Well, of course he did, and he spoke on Second Reading on two matters. He was also present and spoke during the deliberations in Committee, so I am glad of the opportunity to put that point right.
As to the generality of the the Bill, one would have thought from what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said, and to a certain extent from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that what we are trying to do is something totally new and novel; in other words, to try to reduce local government expenditure. When the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was Secretary of State for Scotland, he spent a considerable time—as I am sure he will acknowledge if he casts his mind back—in trying, as it were, to curtail and reduce local government expenditure. His successor in office, Mr. Millan, took part more or less in the same exercise, and indeed when local government expenditure goes against the trends of a Government's economic policy, any responsible Secretary of State will try to get local government expenditure to correspond to national economic priorities. There is no alternative.
In the debates in this House since this Government took office, it has sometimes seemed to me to be very difficult for noble Lords opposite to appreciate just how badly off, economically speaking, this country is. What we are trying to do so far as planned expenditure is concerned is to get local authorities to reduce their expenditure to the planned figure for 1981–82, and that is higher than the actual expenditure the then Secretary of State, Mr. Millan, approved in 1977–78; and if at that time anybody thought these dire consequences would be the result, I certainly do not recall that being said. In 1980–81 and 1981–82 local authorities' estimated spending will be higher in real terms than spending in the noble Lord's period of office. That is the way in which anybody who comes to consider
144
the Bill and the effect it will have must compose his thoughts.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, spoke about tenderness to the disabled but not to the local authorities. I would remind him that the measures in Part II are selective; they will be used only for authorities whose expenditure is unreasonable and excessive. In deciding whether it appears to him that the spending of an individual authority falls into that category, the Secretary of State will have to look carefully at any representations which may be made to him, and more especially he will have to put that in the form of the report which will go to the House of Commons.
The noble Viscount in effect said that local authorities had the task or duty to engage in expenditure to meet their statutory duties, and that of course is right. But I would remind him that they retain a considerable discretion as to how they perform those duties. There is a great range of expenditure by local authorities on a number of services, and at this time of economic difficulty it is absolutely essential that they perform their tasks, decide their priorities and pursue in general a course of what I might describe as moderate expenditure. What Part II does, and what it only does really, is to discourage immoderate expenditure.
Thus, I hope the idea will not go forth from this House that the Bill will in some way reduce the effectiveness of local authorities to carry out the functions which their members are elected to perform. What it is intended to do, and what we hope it will do, is to bring home to those local authorities that they cannot so comport themselves financially that their financial policies are grossly extravagant; and, if they do, then the Government, who after all are responsible undertake the right course of action. It is in those circumstances that I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Forestry Bill
4.46 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
(" Forestry Commission policies
. In section 1 of the Forestry Act 1967 at end insert—
"(6) Directions under this section shall specify the policies to be pursued by the Forestry Commission in respect of local employment and the rural economy, recreation and access, conservation and amenity, the relationship of forestry to other land uses, the selection of land for disposal, and to such other matters as may be considered necessary by the Ministers.
(7) Directions given by the Ministers for the purposes of this section shall be by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment with some regret because I had hoped that in Committee we had succeeded in persuading my noble friend to move an amendment of his own along the lines of this one and the others in my name—namely,

145
Nos. 5 and 11; and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that my Amendment No. 5 has been rescheduled by the Table as No. 8A and will be taken then. My remarks will to some extent cover all those amendments—Nos. 1, 8A and 11—but I shall speak to the latter ones when we reach them.
I want to make it clear at the outset—this may disturb whichever noble Lord will speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—that the amendment is intended to be helpful to Her Majesty's Government; and the Opposition may not want to do that, but we shall see. My concern in these amendments, and in this one in particular, is, first, to see that the Government's forestry policy goes forward and is properly and fully developed. I have a further considerable concern for rural policy as a whole. It is something about which I am concerned because I am president of the District Councils of England and Wales, who are very concerned about the subject; and my third concern (and in this amendment and the others standing in my name it is, I must say, my chief concern as a Member of this House) is that we see that Bills are passed with due attention to the legislative proprieties, which I think are being somewhat threatened in this case.
My amendment is comprehensive and it is as well at this stage, at the outset of the Bill, to remind your Lordships of the context in which we are discussing the subject. We are discussing it in the context of a report back in 1977 by the Forestry Commission relating to the future of wood production in the United Kingdom; in the context of a very significant report of 1980 from the Centre of Agricultural Strategy at Reading University, which we subsequently debated in this House, calling among other things for an extension of the area of the United Kingdom planted up with trees by nearly 2 million hectares, almost a doubling of the area planted at the moment. That was followed by the report of your Lordships' own Select Committee into the scientific and research aspects of forestry, which went into a whole number of important and interesting issues and was somewhat critical of some aspects of current policy. That report was debated in your Lordships' House; and now we are dealing with the Government's Forestry Bill.
It is easier to say that the area of afforestation in this country should be doubled in a generation than it is to put it into effect. There would be considerable difficulties in doing this. I am not averse to the intention expressed in the Bill that the private sector be drawn into the operation to a greater degree than hitherto. But it is most vital that this afforestation should take place. In order to appreciate that point one has only to ask oneself what succeeding generations in this country will have to say to us if, having the right climatic conditions and the right soil conditions, having the opportunity to provide a succeeding generation with a growing, renewable resource of a commodity as useful and as versatile as timber, we in our time fail in our duty to provide it for them.
I believe that the necessity for this great increase in afforestation is accepted by all sides of the House. The question that we must ask ourselves is: how are we to achieve it? We must certainly bring in the private sector. But there are a whole number of very complicating factors, and we need to get them right. The
146
local authorities—the county councils and the district councils—have a number of concerns to do with planning, since forestry and afforestation are outside the planning Acts. There are all the points—some of them rather critical—made by the members of our own expert Select Committee, from whom we shall hear during the afternoon. There are the views of those who speak on behalf of walkers, ramblers and visitors about the loss of access that will be involved, at least temporarily. There are those who are concerned with the effect of all of this on the landscape; and here I should like to say that the Forestry Commission has very largely repented of the approach that in the past has done so much to damage the landscape in a number of our national parks. There are those with an interest in the forest parks who would not want to see take place there any sales which restricted the use of them for recreation. There is the National Trust, which has its own anxieties.
On the more positive side there are those in the local authorities in particular who have a concern for the rural economy as a whole, which is not always assisted by some of the technical developments in agriculture or in forestry, which can have the effect of shedding labour from the remoter rural areas, rather than of creating jobs.
Lastly, and most important of all, there is the opportunity that the programme provides for integrating farming and forestry. In this particular connection, I would submit to the House that it is not appropriate, nor satisfactory, to rely on a large number of institutions to bring private finance into forestry, desirable and valuable though that might be. Nor is it wholly satisfactory that further planting should be conducted by those landowners with large estates who do not have to see an early return from their investment. Farming and forestry must in some way involve an integration carried out by the small farmers in the hills of this country. That is being done, but only on a pilot scale at the moment, and as Members of Parliament we must see that that particular aspect is pursued. This is a matter in which I know my noble friend Lord Dulverton takes a particular interest. So mere privatisation is not in itself enough, and if I may say so, I think that the Bill is rather feeble in that that is the only aspect of the matter on which it touches.
In dealing with the innumerable amendments covering the aspects that I have just mentioned, my noble friend Lord Mansfield previously gave a number of very valuable explanations as to how he and his colleagues in the Forestry Commission were intending to proceed, and his assurances were very useful. So, too, was the letter which he had placed in the Library, giving an indication of the procedures for governing the sales of Forestry Commission land to the private sector.
All of that was very welcome, but none of it is a substitute for proper legislation. These assurances are very welcome, the letter in the Library is very welcome; but we have yet to see appropriate follow-up action in the form of legislation. I put to the House during the Committee stage, and I put to it again now, the view that the kind of things that were being sought and the kind of points that my noble friend was making in response are not appropriate for primary legislation. I think that they are much more appropriate

147
for subordinate legislation, and that is why I have worded my amendment in the way that I have done. It does no more than provide the hooks in this Bill on which the subordinate legislation can be hung, and it gives an indication of the kind of matters which I believe Parliament ought to see covered in the subordinate legislation. It does no more than that.
I have sought the advice of those who are far more qualified than I am on the proprieties of the way on which my noble friend would have us proceed, and I must say that they confirm my own impression that at the moment they are not moving along the right lines. Therefore it is for that reason that I particularly wish to press my amendment.
However I should like to go on to say what I would judge to be the effect of accepting this amendment and the other similar amendments. If Amendment No. 1 were passed, it would oblige my noble friend to look at the current management objectives that are set for the Forestry Commission. Those are the ones dated 1975. They are conveniently given in paragraph 103 on page 36 of your Lordships' Select Committee report, as are the Committee's criticisms of them.
My noble friend would then have to decide, in the light of what has gone on since 1975, in the light of the new policies that have been developed, the reports that have been published (and to which I have referred), and the criticisms of the report that I have mentioned to what extent the directives needed revision. I should have thought that they certainly needed revision. He would then have to redraft the directives in the light of whatever decision he takes, and then lay them before Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument, which the House could debate but not change; and if my noble friend carried out his consultations satisfactorily, that would be that.
While I am on the subject perhaps I may refer to Amendment No. 11. All that would be necessary to meet the point made there would be for Her Majesty's Government merely to put the letter that they have already placed in the Library into a form in which it could be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument, and then lay the instrument. To my mind that particular amendment would go a long way to allay the anxieties felt in the Forest of Dean; but we shall come to that anon.
The benefits that would flow from proceeding in that way are as follows. First, the substance of all the assurances that Ministers have been offering us during the passage of the Bill would then be properly on the parliamentary record; and I think that as Members of Parliament we have a duty to see that that is so. The whole barrage of amendments with which my noble friend has been faced would be dealt with. Of course some of them would not be accepted, but at least we should know what was the Government's attitude to them. Others could be accepted in the subordinate legislation that would be involved, and they would be incorporated in a parliamentary document without cluttering up the primary legislation.
Furthermore, if more changes were made as time went by and all this afforestation took place, and some of the effects of it were seen, further changes in the directive could be made without having to come to Parliament with a fresh Bill. Members of your
148
Lordships' House who have been Ministers know how difficult it is to get anything into the legislative programme.
So I commend the amendment to your Lordships chiefly because I think that it is the proper way for us to proceed in legislative terms; I commend it secondly because I feel that we must have regard to the total rural economy and the overall rural policy; and I commend it thirdly because I want to sec the Government's forestry policy succeeding and developing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order for me to speak now, but as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which my noble friend referred, feel that perhaps it would be an advantage to the House if I said a word at this moment. I am very interested in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford because it covers much the same ground, as he knows, as Amendment No. 19, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and other members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, including myself, and which I had the privilege to move in Committee on May 11th. For this reason, I have agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger (who was also a member of the Select Committee and whose place is taken this afternoon, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston) and, indeed, with the Opposition Front Bench as a whole, not to table a similar amendment to the old Amendment No. 19 for this Report stage, and that is why I am speaking to my noble friend's amendment, which he moved so effectively.
I would add that in the meantime I have received from my noble friend Lord Mansfield, the Minister of State, a very cogent and comprehensive letter, for which I am most grateful to him, giving the reasons why he was not able to meet the Select Committee's point on the integration of land uses, which noble Lords will remember had support from all quarters of your Lordships' Committee during the Committee stage. I circulated that letter to other members of the Select Committee and to those who spoke on 11th May, and no doubt some of them may wish to speak to it this afternoon; and I am grateful for their comments.
However, I must now admit that after some heart-searching I agree with my noble friend the Minister that the development of a harmonious relationship between land users may be the most effective way of achieving the aims of the Select Committee, and that this could be achieved without recourse to legislation. I know that one of the commissioners' recognised objectives is to foster a harmonious relationship between forestry and agriculture, and that this can be extended to other interests. I also think, on reflection, that the consultative procedures can be effective, and that they could lead to a compromise which, as my noble friend the Minister has told me, could be an expression of integration in the broadest sense of the term.
I must also agree, as I stated in Committee, that the aims of the Select Committee are already being pursued by the Forestry Commissioners, and it would be a good thing for their published objectives to take account of all other land uses. I was also a little concerned

149
when I heard that implementing the amendment might result in the Forestry Commission being obliged to increase their staff, although I had originally hoped, as I think I made clear at Committee stage, that they would not have to do so. But in view of this, and the letter from my noble friend the Minister, I do not feel, much as I fully appreciate the intentions of my noble friend Lord Sandford, that I personally could go into the Lobby with him if indeed he decides to divide the House.
On the other hand, I must say that it is of course entirely up to other members of the Select Committee, and indeed other noble Lords in different parts of the House who were not members of the committee, to make up their own minds on this matter and support my noble friend Lord Sandford if they feel they should. But, personally, I now accept the Government's explanations as to why they are inclined not to accept an amendment of this kind. I regret that, due to his absence abroad, I have not been able to consult the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, the chairman of the sub-committee which produced this report, on this matter. Therefore, I should emphasise that what I have said constitutes a purely personal view.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I rise very briefly indeed, believing that it may be helpful to your Lordships' House if I inform your Lordships that the Council for National Parks, which represents the whole spectrum of recreational amenity and conservation interests, warmly supports this amendment, which we regard as quite essential to the defence of the purposes for which the national parks were established. I realise, of course, that this amendment covers land not within the national parks, but I think it has a particular importance in connection with the national parks. Therefore, we believe it is right that there should be a statutory obligation on the Forestry Commission to take into account all those interests which are represented by the Council for National Parks when disposing of Forestry Commission land.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I rise for one minute only to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and to say that I wish his amendment were stronger. I am one of those who from the very beginning has had reservations about Clause 1 of this Bill—not reservations about selling fringe land and selling land in accordance with the normal processes of estate management, but about seeing an open-ended commitment like this in the Bill. Before I sit down I am going to ask the Minister to remember just one thing, and that is that forestry, timber and amenity interests all over the country are united, I would say—or the great majority of them are—in disliking this Clause 1. I therefore beg my noble friend to accept this amendment and to go further than just giving assurances and putting letters in the Library.
The Earl of Wemyss and March: My Lords, I, too, would most earnestly beg my noble friend Lord Mansfield to accept this amendment, which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Of course, it stands not only in that noble Lord's
150
name but in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and at Committee stage she made very able representations about all the troubles and all the worries that she had—the things that were being done by the Forestry Commission (rights of access, recreation and all the rest of it) which would be lost if sales took place in the indiscriminate way which, on the face of it, this Bill as at first drafted allows.
Admittedly, it is extremely difficult—and that came out well, I think, in the debate—to put all this sort of thing in primary legislation in order to remove this fear. Therefore, it seems to me that the excellent way of putting it into regulations should be adopted instead. There are all sorts of anxieties about many kinds of details, some of which I have no doubt will be discussed when we speak on later amendments, ranging from the Forest of Dean to the National Trusts, which in many cases it is difficult to put into statutory form. I very much hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government, who up to now have shown considerable rigidity on this matter—but if one reads some of the amendments to be moved by the noble Earl later today it looks as though this attitude is slightly breaking down, which we all welcome—will start us off for a good, happy afternoon by accepting this useful amendment.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, as another member of your Lordships' Select Committee I must briefly intervene to back up and support my noble friend Lord Bessborough in this debate which has thrown up such contrary attitudes towards this amendment. I will not repeat all that he said; he set out the reasons for his change of mind, as it were, over setting down by statute these duties of the Forestry Commissioners. But I will repeat that I personally am also persuaded, although having been a member of the Select Committee which made recommendations along these lines, that it would not be right to incorporate this amendment into the Bill. I would only say, as a corollary of that—and my noble friend said something about my interest in trying to get integration of farming and forestry among the hills, which is an interest I have been pursuing for many years—that on that particular subject there is not enough being done and not enough of a lead being given by the Government. We have paid lip service to it for years and years and it is left entirely to a few individuals in the private sector to make their own attempts at doing it. It is very important for the future.
I hope that the Government will, sometime very soon, set down and think out ways and means of progressing that combined land use of forestry and farming. Otherwise, it is a fact that the Forestry Commissioners are charged to consult deeply with almost all the other land-using interests and, I believe, they do exactly. It might be somewhat discriminatory to put this duty statutorily upon the Forestry Commission if you do not put the same duty statutorily upon people like the Countryside Commission and the National Conservative Council, and I could go on about that. I want to say that I am persuaded, as is my noble friend Lord Bessborough, that we had better not press this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when we had the Wildlife and Countryside Bill before us, we went into considerable detail about the effect of farming upon wildlife. In so far as my noble friend Lord Sandford's amendment makes some attempt to ensure that forestry has the right effect on farming and farming the right effect on forestry, I should have thought it would be right to spell out some of the policies in the way he suggests. That is the only point of substance that I wanted to make in supporting my noble friend. But he referred to what he called the proprieties of legislation. May I say a few words briefly about that? We are accustomed to Ministers explaining their policies and giving assurances; and that is a necessary and courteous thing to do, especially when it goes one stage further of laying documents in the Library for us to see. But in a case like this, where I think the Government are really asking for a doctor's mandate for them and the Forestry Commission to do what they like in future, it is not quite enough—especially in the light of the report of the Select Committee to which reference has been made.
We cannot and should not expect the Government to spell out all the details that might arise in applying their policies, especially on this where a degree of flexibility is obviously needed. But I am sure that my noble friend Lord Sandford is right in suggesting that the Government should agree that in the legislation we should spell out the essentials; and that is what he is trying to do. He is doing it in a very flexible way because, instead of asking for the whole thing to be written out in the Bill, he is saying that directions which shall be turned into statutory instruments shall be put before Parliament from time to time and that allows flexibility to take place; because if the statutory instrument, not having been annulled by Parliament, becomes part of the law but is found to be in need of change at some future date, then another statutory instrument can be laid before Parliament so that the Government are not tied down too much.
Therefore I think my noble friend has the balance about right. He is not asking the Government to commit themselves to an unreasonable extent and, therefore, think that, subject to any points of drafting which my noble friend Lord Mansfield may have, this amendment and those which go with it should be accepted.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am very suspicious of these amendments. I hope the Government will not accept them. Forestry is like farming; it is farming trees. This amendment attempts to interfere, for the sake of all sorts of other reasons, with the commercial considerations of forestry, which are tight enough as it is. I think that interference with industry has always had the same effect, when politicians get together and interfere with public industry, and we have seen it with the nationalised industries. The less interference with this growing crop the better. Indeed, if it is interfered with enough, the time will come when it will make such huge losses (if it has not made them already) that public forestry will become one of the things to be cut as being too great a loss-maker.
One particular point is the selection of land for disposal. It seems to me unbelievable that the Minister should have a hand in the decision as to which land
152
should be disposed of. This is a matter for the Forestry Commission; it is the expert. If politicians interfere with that, then you can expect to have total unsuccess in the industry. It smacks of planning, and there is no earthly reason why planners should have any better ideas than the Forestry Commission as to what things will look like. In fact, there are good reasons why they should not. The whole countryside has been built up by countrymen who know what is best for the country. As soon as the planners have anything to do with it, it is usually disastrous.
If this sort of amendment were to be accepted, one might disband the Forestry Commission and make it up again as "Amenity Commission". Then we would know where we are. Having said that, I think it is true that the Forestry Commission already has careful concern for the effects of what it does. It is concerned with its labour problems and with the amenities side; so that one is not talking about a commission which does not pay regard to the very points which the noble Lord wishes to incorporate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. I do not want to go into any of the arguments but I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that the whole of the row and the reason for this amendment is interference by politicians in the affairs of the Forestry Commission. Never have I seen a Bill which is so unpopular among knowledgeable supporters of the Government. It is extraordinary the amount of suspicion that has arisen. The reason for this amendment is that people do not believe the Government. They think that they have put up the whole Bill simply to flog off as much as they can and get some money in the kitty. That is the truth of the matter.
As to noble Lords opposite, I see noble Lords that I greatly respect and I see loyalty struggling with reason in an endeavour to get some sense into the Government. But really I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that his amendment would do something to protect the excellent work that the commission has already done, and, we hope, will do in the future, and I should like to support it.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said, the Forestry Commission already pay attention to the factors mentioned in this amendment. They already have regard to these considerations. On the general grounds that Parliament should explicitly acknowledge this wider background against which the commissioners formulate their policy, this amendment should be accepted.
I have a particular ground for supporting this amendment. I ask your Lordships to bear with me a moment. It concerns the National Trust, of which I am chairman. It may be convenient to refer to it here since it provides me with a powerful reason for supporting the amendment. The trust is referred to in subsequent amendments, but if I deal with this now I need not trouble your Lordships later.
There are two matters of concern to the trust in this Bill. One concerns the present power of the Forestry Commissioners to acquire compulsorily our inalienable

153
land; and the other is the Forestry Commission's power to dispose of leases of land held by them where the freehold interest is held inalienably by the National Trust. Regarding the first of these two concerns, a Government Amendment (No. 14) will set this matter right if it is carried. I am extremely grateful to the Government for putting it down. As regards the second, concerning the disposal of leases of National Trust land held by the Forestry Commission, I should like to explain the trust's position.
The trust has received assurances from the Government to the effect that in their directions to the Forestry Commission they will require that inalienable land leased from the trust which has been afforested by the Commission shall not be assigned to others without the trust's consent. In the case of land leased from the trust but not planted, the trust must be given first refusal to buy back the lease before it is assigned to others. We believe that this is fair and reasonable. I have therefore refrained from doing what I would otherwise have done: namely, put down an amendment in the terms contained in Amendment No. 12 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. However, I am aware that assurances are not a substitute for legislation, and while I am happy that they will bind this Administration, they cannot bind later ones. That is a point which many of your Lordships have already made.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, by requiring parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the directions given to the Forestry Commission by Ministers, would afford the National Trust the protection of Parliament against any Administration tempted not to honour the present Government's assurances. So that is a special interest which I have in urging your Lordships to accept this amendment. I believe that it gives us the protection we need without imposing specific and unreasonable limitations on the freedom of the Forestry Commissioners to dispose of their interests in land which they do not require for forestry. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that with particular decisions about disposals of land it would be ridiculous for Ministers to interfere on a regular basis. This is a point of principle about which they are going to instruct the Forestry Commission, and I personally should like to see it protected in the way that this amendment would do.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I had some reservations about this amendment which were not dispelled by the speeches which have so far been made. I understand Lord Sandford's objectives very well as he described them. It is a comprehensive amendment to try to achieve a balanced rural economy to see that the best argicultural land is used for farming and, by and large, the worst land is used for forestry. That is entirely admirable. However, when he says in his amendment that directions under this clause shall specify the policies, I cannot see how one can do more than specialise in general—in other words, to appoint where the clause is really meaningless.
For example, let me take the words which refer to local employment. You can specify, if this amendment is carried, that in principle the Forestry Commission should employ local people. But all of us know that
154
that is totally impossible. So this is a general instruction which I think on the ground will be meaningless. Again, if I may take the broad question, how can one lay down a direction in abstract as to which land is best for farming and which is best for forestry? It is simply not possible to do it. With all respect, this amendment specified generalities which on the ground will be found to be meaningless. I never like cluttering up an Act of Parliament with language of this sort.
Lord McNair: My Lords, may I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, as I was not present to hear the beginning of his speech. I went upstairs to get my papers and was trapped on the telephone. In the bulk of his speech which I heard he explained the amendment so clearly that there is no need for me to add anything to it. On the question of the legislative propriety of the procedure that he suggests, I am certainly not qualified to express an opinion except that if it satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it satisfies me.
May I say a private word, so to speak, to those who are particularly concerned with and interested in the Forest of Dean? We did at one stage hope that we could achieve all our aims through the mechanism of Lord Sandford's amendment. We asked him if he could make a very small addition to it which would meet the remaining misgivings in the forest. As he was perfectly entitled to do, he declined to make the addition. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I shall be persisting along the lines of Amendment No. 6, when we reach it, because we do not feel that this goes far enough for the particular problems of the Dean. That is certainly no reason for not supporting this amendment, which I personally do.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, may I speak shortly. Everything that is said in this amendment is on the side of virtue. It is saying that virtue is a good thing and sin is a bad thing. It does not get us anywhere. With respect to my noble friend, all the things which are mentioned in this amendment are already being done to the best abilities of the commissioners. If you take them point by point—local employment, for instance—look at the amount of local employment that has come from the forestry industry, in particular the Forestry Commission. Look at the addition to the rural economy. Look at the vast sums of public money that the commissioners have been administering in the cause of recreation and access. I think the figure was £3¼ million last year.
Then, conservation and amenity. I cannot stress enough to your Lordships that the liaison at top level and indeed at all levels today between the commissioners and those who carry out their duties in the Countryside Commission and in the Nature Conservancy is of the highest order. It is no coincidence that the chairman of the Forestry Commission was on the Nature Conservancy and that the present chairman of the Nature Conservancy was once a forestry commissioner. All these people are working in the closest harmony in order to achieve what I believe we ourselves and people outside would wish. I therefore quite shortly say that, however, well intentioned this amendment is, I do not believe it will help the commissioners in the job they are doing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wonder whether he would take it from me that I know of a case of a Forestry Commission forest in South-West Scotland where, instead of employing local labour for thinning, they got contractors up from Hampshire. I should have thought that was a quite unjustifiable situation.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, to my noble friend I would only say this: even people in Hampshire need work!
5.31 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, may I first apologise for the unavoidable absence of my noble friend, Lady Jeger who, as noble Lords will know, has been concerned with this matter during earlier stages of the Bill. Secondly, I feel I should declare an interest as a member of the Church Commissioners who have some interest in the measure, and also as a member of the Council of the National Trust. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has already made some observations. I suppose my other local interest is that I live in Nottinghamshire, and therefore Sherwood Forest, which is perhaps one of the best-known forests in the world, is situated in the area where I live. Now being a country park, it is one of the many amenities controlled by various authorities and which we appreciate, and which is a cause of concern regarding this and other measure before the House.
The importance of the amendment has been shown by the fact that many noble Lords, especially those opposite, who have supported the Bill in general have shown the gravest misgivings about the kind of assurances they have been seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a very strong contribution on this matter. The amendment is directed to Section 1 of the 1967 Act, and when one talks about the present Act, which is tied to this Bill, one is aware of the fact that the Forestry Commissioners under the 1967 Act have responsibilities laid on them. To quote Section 1(2):
"The Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the production and supply of timber and other forest products …".
Section 3 refers to the maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, a few moments ago was rather critical of the fact that the Forestry Commission might become an amenity society. Indeed, the Forestry Commission, like many other bodies who are responsible for the custodianship of great national assets like our forests, is very much aware of the present-day needs in the direction of this amendment.
It may well have been that when the 1967 Act was framed the Forestry Commission, and indeed the House and the country, accepted that the promotion of forestry, the development of afforestation, and so on, was all that they required to bother themselves with. But in the period which has elapsed since, we all know there are many other commendable aspects which we expect them, together with local authorities, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and many other bodies, to have in mind.
156
They include the requirements mentioned in this amendment, which says that:
"(6) Directions under this section shall specify the policies to be pursued by the Forestry Commission in respect of local employment and the rural economy, recreation and access, conservation and amenity …"
and all the rest.
It is no good saying that the Forestry Commission is aware of all this because although that may be so, and indeed it acts very commendably in those directions, we are now at the stage where the Forestry Commission is likely to be overruled by a future Minister. Clause 1 is really the whole Bill, and what matters is that the Minister shall have power to dispose. Nothing is laid down in the Bill so far which indicates that those who buy the land from the Minister when he disposes either with or without the advice, approval or consent of the Forestry Commission, shall use it for any particular purpose. If the land is to be sold, one anticipates that those interested in buying it will have as their main concern the financial aspect. That is of course very natural in those circumstances.
So although Her Majesty's Government say that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the achievement of part of the Government's policy of forestry outlined in the Statement of 10th December last, it is quite clear that that is the subsidiary purpose. Indeed, on Second Reading on 15th April the noble Earl said that the purpose of Clause 1 was to enable the Forestry Commission to generate funds for progressively reducing its dependence on the Exchequer. This may, of course, militate against some of the concerns which noble Lords in the House and indeed in the country have shown since the publication of the Bill.
He followed this assertion with the claim that this would enable the commission to operate more flexibly in the commercial world, Of course, that is a very nice way of hiding to some extent the real intention; but the cat is let out of the bag by Clause 2, which says:
"(4A) There shall be paid out of the Forestry Fund into the Consolidated Fund such sums as the Ministers may from time to time with the approval of the Treasury direct".
So it seems that the interests of forestry, those of amenity, local employment, conservation and also the interests of getting more timber and producing our own pulp and helping the balance of payments are secondary to the financial considerations.
I would refer to the Second Reading debate, when the Minister made some observations which I think have caused the grave concerns expressed in this House, even by those people who sit behind him. He said at col. 993 on 15th April:
"In selecting areas for sale, and the method of disposal in each case, the Commission will be taking into account a number of key factors. I mentioned these during our debate on 23rd February, but they are of such importance that I feel justified in bringing them again to your Lordships' attention, since they demonstrate the care and attention which will be given to the disposals programme. They are"—
and this is the important point—
"financial considerations".
I am sorry: he did not say that. To quote him, he said:
"They are: financial considerations; the maintenance and development of the wood processing industry; the maintenance of

157
employment and the viability of local communities, especially in the socially fragile areas; the use of forests for public access and recreation; the interests of conservation, research and education; the effects on management; the market preferences having regard to other criteria; and, lastly, the rationalisation of the forestry estate".
So the Minister and the Government are very much holding in mind some of the anxieties and considerations which have led the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to table this amendment, to its support by my noble friends and the misgivings which have been expressed by noble Lords during the debate.
The Bill therefore seems to be directed more to the Treasury getting its fingers into the Forestry Commission till than to the proper pursuit of a rational forestry policy and the considerations which we have in mind. In fact, the real thrust of the Bill, as with many other Government Bills, is not the best interests of forestry despite the points made when the Minister spoke earlier with his Statement, but is directed towards a reduction of public involvement in matters which many of us would feel are rightly of public concern.
Therefore, we feel that the points made in this amendment are commendable. They are certainly not at variance with the expressions of Government policy which were outlined by the noble Earl in the earlier stages of this Bill, in the Government's Statement of December last or in February this year, when they outlined their policy. I am trying to help the Government here. That is not usual, I must say, but we are trying to ensure that what the Government say they stand for is put into this legislation.
The other point that I want to make is that the House has been told of various assurances to certain people. I understand that the National Trust has had certain assurances in a letter and, doubtless, other people, who have had misgivings about Clause 1—which is the substance of the entire Bill—have had assurances. One is inclined to accept the assurances of the Government, if they write to people and say, "Your misgivings are unfounded, because we are prepared to bear in mind the points on which you have expressed concern But, as a former Minister—and there are plenty of other former Ministers here—I know very well that the letters we write to people giving assurances cannot last indefinitely. There are also enough lawyers here, and others with a legal background, who will say that on matters such as forestry, amenities and the way in which land that is sold will be used in future, this Bill is all that matters.
Clause 1 is very stark. It states:
"(2) The Minister may dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section".
That means that it can go to anyone. Land which is held on lease from various bodies—and the National Trust is one of them—can apparently be disposed of with no safeguards, except what has been said in the letter. Very few of us know what assurances have been given. The National Trust now has nearly 1 million members, and I do not know how they will be assured about some of the misgivings which might have been offset by this letter. So assurances, no matter how sincere, count for little when they are not in the Bill for future Ministers to act upon.
158
We feel that there is merit in this amendment. The other point about it is that it states:
"Directions given by the Ministers for the purposes of this section shall be by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
That means that the element of accountability comes into it, because a statutory instrument is something which is tabled. It may or may not be debated, though I understand that many are not debated at all. But the fact is that it gives people and organisations who are concerned a chance to have the matter debated by both Houses, and an opportunity for the Minister to answer with a spirit of accountability—as I am sure he would—for what he intends to do.
If the Forestry Commission is to be held responsible only for matters of forestry, afforestation, timber and all the rest, no matter how important the subject is, although taking into account the items mentioned in this amendment—and amenities are increasingly important in this day and age—we want to make sure that those who want to purchase land will also hear in mind the importance of other aspects.
There have been references by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to the number of reports which have been laid before Parliament, or which have been issued in the last few years, concerning science and technology and many other commendable matters. One would not wish on this occasion to mention some of them, but we feel that, at this stage, the amendment contains the very minimum requirements which should be laid upon the Forestry Commission, and which should also be borne in mind by those who purchase land which is eventually disposed of by this Minister, or by his successors, in years to come.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, I spoke briefly when this point was discussed in Committee, and, having listened very carefully to this debate this evening, I feel that we should be unwise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford. It has often been said that the pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions. I do not think that this is a particularly good Bill. I had hoped very much that it might be possible for Ministers to come back to the House and slightly to ameliorate the severity of Clause 1. This is a very short Bill and I think that it is too short.
I do not think we ought to have a Bill which simply states:
"The Minister may dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section",
and shall then hand the money over to the Treasury. That is all it says. There is another clause which says that you had better have another forestry commissioner. It is too short a Bill and I had hoped that Clause 1 would be slightly hedged around with some safeguards. But that is not to be. I fear, as my noble friend Lord Home has said, that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford would make what is now a bad Bill—he did not say this, but I say it—into a confused Bill, because the amendment would not take us very much further.
Under the Forestry Act 1967, as well as under the original Forestry Acts, Ministers have powers to give directions and, for the first time, we would be saying that Ministers have to give specific directions on certain

159
things which are set out in the amendment. It is very difficult to give clear and precise directions that can be put into a statutory instrument and laid before Parliament. I think that we had better leave as they are those powers that the Minister has to give directions. He will give them when he sees fit, and the Forestry Commission will loyally carry them out.
The Forestry Commission has a very good record. It has been acting under existing Acts of Parliament since 1919 and has done an extremely good job, which it is still doing. It has looked after the private sector as well as its own public sector, and long may it continue to do so. I wish that we did not have this severe clause unhedged around with safeguards, which could be used by this Government or any other Government once the Bill is on the statute book. I do not think that the Bill would be improved by this statutory instrument device, which, with the best of intentions, my noble friend Lord Sandford puts forward to try to ameliorate Clause 1, which I do not think it does and which merely confuses it.
5.48 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, may I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Sandford most warmly and, indeed, sincerely for his very sustained and ingenious way of trying to reconcile a number of doubts which noble Lords have had about this Bill, and I shall come back to that. Secondly, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that I shall not follow him down the byways of the Forest of Dean. I have written to him twice within the last few days. I hope that he has received both of those letters—I see that he nods—and that both, in their different ways, will have brought joy to him as well as to those whose cause he has espoused.
Equally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and to my noble friend Lord Wemyss, that I do not think, in the context of this debate, that it is very fruitful to go into the affairs of the two National Trusts. We shall debate those matters on different amendments and I hope that I shall then have an opportunity of telling the House about the arrangements to which we have come and which seem, on the face of them, at any rate, to have fairly satisfactory features. Furthermore, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, down what I might call the paths which have led from the original forestry statement, and through the various stages of this Bill, to the position in which we find ourselves now.
My noble friend's first amendment as distinct from his third amendment, Amendment No. 11, seeks to amend Section 1 of the Forestry Act 1967. I say that because to a degree both amendments are separate and distinct but they overlap in one material part, because they both cover a selection of land for disposal, and both lay down the parliamentary procedure to be followed in either instance. Otherwise, Amendment No. 1 would put into statutory instrument form the various matters which would be embodied in directions under Section 1.
I have to say to the House that I believe it would be unprecedented for directions of this kind to be given in a statutory instrument, and I say that because the matters in the new clause are essentially matters of
160
policy, and I suggest it would be inappropriate that they should be given legislative form. I am reinforced in that view by the attitude taken by my noble friends, Lord Home of the Hirsel and Lord Hawke, who pointed out only too graphically the dangers and pitfalls inherent in trying to write legislative procedures and considerations into matters of policy.
Within the policies laid down by successive Governments the commissioners have developed their own objectives, and I say that in relation to both the forestry enterprise and the commissioners' role as the forestry authority, which is so important to the private interest. These objectives have been published in the Commissioners' Policy and Procedure Paper No. 1. There are other papers, which deal specifically and in more detail with other aspects of those objectives, and copies of all these papers are available in the Library. I should like to quote from the Policy and Procedure Paper No. 1 those policy objectives adopted by the commissioners and which have been endorsed quite happily by the Government. They are: to protect and enhance the environment; to provide recreational facilities; to stimulate and support the local economy in areas of depopulation by the development of forests including the establishment of new plantations and wood-using industry; to foster a harmonious relationship between forestry and agriculture. Here, in a slightly restricted form, the paper deals with the matters which have been raised by my noble friend Lord Bessborough and more especially by the Select Committee. I say that because this last objective can and will be widened by the commission to include other land users, some of which were mentioned in the amendment suggested by your Lordships' Select Committee at a previous stage.
In the case of the forestry enterprise, the commission's notes on its objectives end:
"In pursuit of the foregoing objectives, to manage the estate economically and efficiently, and to account for its activities to Ministers and Parliament".
Those are the objectives which the Commissioners have set themselves. They are kept under review and can be modified as the need arises. I suggest that there is no need to have recourse to legislation by way of ministerial direction in order to achieve what my noble friend has in mind. But my noble friend will know—as your Lordships will know—that the commission is already statutorily required by the Countryside Acts to have regard, in exercising its function relating to land, to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. This covers the conservation of flora, fauna, geological features and so on.
Perhaps I may now set out very briefly the constitutional position, and in the presence of my noble friend Lord Renton I must gang warily, as we say in Scotland, but could I just say to him in parenthesis that so far as the employees from Hampshire are concerned, if the commission sells timber or land under trees it cannot, in the case of a timber merchant, control the timber merchant's employees. Obviously different considerations apply when the commission is working with its own employees. In the case mentioned by my noble friend, as I understand it, the particular firm employed to harbour the trees chose their employees from a different part of the country.

161
The statutory duties of the Forestry Commissioners are set out in Section 1 of the Forestry Act 1967, which is a consolidation Act, and they stem from the Forestry Act 1919 under which the commission was originally set up. Section 1 provides that in exercising their functions under the Act the commissioners shall comply with such directions as are given to them by forestry Ministers acting jointly or severally if they should so decide. In fact, during the past 60 or more years that the commission has been in existence, formal powers of direction have rarely been used and I understand that only two occasions spring to mind. The last of these was in 1975, when it was decided to give the commissioners formal directions in relation to the implementation of policies for private forestry announced in another place on 5th July 1974. The direction was merely a formal device to put on record certain arrangements for inter-departmental and other consultations on applications made to the commissioners for grant aid in respect of afforestation schemes and for felling licences. In the event of disagreement these arrangements provide for cases to be referred to Ministers for consideration, and I know from personal experience that they work well.
It is against this background that I have to say to my noble friend that it would be out of order to give the commissioners formal directions under Section 1 on the selection of areas for sale. The land at the disposal of the commissioners is vested in the forestry Ministers. It is they who have the power of disposal; disposal of land is not part of the commissioners' statutory duties which may be subject to direction. In practice the commissioners will exercise these powers as they exercise the limited disposal powers currently available, but I want to emphasise that they do so in the names of Ministers under delegated authority. For that reason I suggest that the amendment as it stands is defective in its aims, and it is also for that reason that we have chosen to give the Commissioners guidelines, or a code of practice, rather than a statutory direction. To that extent the commissioners will be acting under the instructions of forestry Ministers.
In Committee I mentioned that the Forestry Commission is now recognised, for all practical purposes, as a department of state and I subsequently wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown (who I see is not in his place), to confirm this. There are, of course, special circumstances which make the commission a unique organisation, and I believe it would be a mistake to disturb what has been, and is, a most successful constitutional relationship with Ministers. The fact of the matter is that the Commission is the medium through which Governments of either complexion exercise their forestry policies, whether those policies be directed towards afforestation and associated activities by the state or by the private sector, or a combination of both. The execution of those policies is a matter for the commissioners, who seek guidance and instructions from Ministers as they consider necessary. To this extent the commissioners are no different from any other department of state.
Finally, may I suggest to my noble friend, and indeed to the House, what might happen if this amendment to Section 1 were written into the Bill. An opening would be created for any interested body—
162
indeed, for anybody with an axe to grind—to challenge by legal proceedings the individual acts of the commissioners carried out in furtherance of the policies laid down, on the grounds that this or that requirement of the regulations had not been properly taken into account. The result would be that considerable, I would go so far as to say great, uncertainty would hang over the detailed actions of the commissioners in the areas governed by the regulations. I think they could be severely inhibited in their implementation of the policies required of them. This would be because they would be under the continuous fear, to use no other word, of legal challenge.
Although I am very grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has approached his amendment—he has certainly caused us to consider very carefully what we are doing—in the light of all that has been said in this debate I would ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his very detailed and thoughtful response to my amendment. I was particularly relieved that he said nothing to indicate that what is proposed is contrary to the forestry policy of Her Majesty's Government. That was certainly not the intention. What I am offering the House is an opportunity to consider whether the way in which we are legislating here—this particularly bare clause, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave put it—is all that can be said as a background to all that is about to happen in the general field of forestry. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that unless something is done, suspicions among a number of bodies will be aroused as to what the Government are up to, and those suspicions can easily be allayed.
My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel and one or two others said that this amendment of mine does not get us very far. I agree absolutely with that. The amendment on its own certainly does not get us very far. I described it as a hook on which to hang something more substantial. If your Lordships were to look at the letter which was laid in the Library I think you would see that although it relates to my Amendment No. 11, given this sort of hook it is possible to say something more which is useful by way of guidance, advice, guidelines to Ministers or to the Forestry Commission as to how they should proceed. They have issued directives which the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, read out more or less complete. So there is no difficulty over issuing these directives. I think that they ought to be amended and improved, and the Select Committee said so in terms.
My amendment provides a parliamentary hook upon which to hang that and thus to give to the public and to Parliament, which is more important, proper insight, formally and regularly, into what is going on. It can be done, and I have to say that it has been done. My noble friend Lord Renton who does not have the right to reply, whereas I have, reminds me that in the case of the Home Office their immigration officers operate under directives in the same way as I am suggesting the Forestry Commission should operate. They are prescribed by statutory instrument, and that statutory instrument has to be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses of Parliament. So there is a precedent for doing this and my own feeling,

163
and that of quite a number of your Lordships who have spoken, is that it ought to be done.
The amendment does not in itself do anything to disturb the excellent consultative procedures which the Forestry Commission and their Ministers have built up. All it does is to provide a proper framework, laid before Parliament, under which one can see what these consultative procedures amount to. It also provides the Government with a convenient opportunity—much more convenient than introducing further legislation—to modify that framework if they see fit.
It is always difficult to decide what to do when your own Government resist one of your own amendments. The House has expressed itself in a number of different ways and the balance of opinion is very even. I think that I owe it to those who have supported me to let the House decide what it thinks about the amendment.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 109.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kintore, E.

Baker, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Maelor, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Oram, L.

Chitnis, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Collison, L.

Renton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

de Clifford, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Segal, L.

Fulton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Simon, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Spens, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gibson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vernon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Janner, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wemyss and March, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carrington, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cathcart, E.

Avon, E.

Chelwood, L.

Bathurst, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cockfield, L.

Belstead, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Craigavon, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Caccia, L.

Crathorne, L.

Cairns, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

164

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mansfield, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mar, C.

Dilhorne, V.

Marley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dulverton, L.

Middleton, L.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mottistone, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Feversham, L.

Newall, L.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Onslow, E.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Salisbury, M.

Saltoun, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Hatherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Stamp, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Kilmany, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinross, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Loudoun, C.

Waldegrave, E.

Lyell, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Westbury, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wigram, L.

McFadzean, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 [Disposal of land]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, I am advised that Amendment No. 2 has been marshalled wrongly and therefore I call Amendment No. 3.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to make sense of Amendment No. 3 we must read also Amendment No. 4. Attention has already been drawn to the fact of how difficult it is to amend this—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord about Amendment No. 2? Is he taking that now or later?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, a mistake was made by those who were marshalling these matters. If the noble Earl will look he will see that the word "for" on line 5 comes before insert ("a") at the end of line 5, so the one that relates takes precedence in relation to the actual mention in the line. So we take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together and then we come back to Amendment No. 2. I have not neglected

165
No. 2 because I think it is a very important amendment, although I may say that the Public Bill Office could not understand it.
Amendment No. 3 reads:
"Page 1, line 5, leave out ("for") and insert ("after"),
and Amendment No. 4:
"Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("be") to end of line 9 and insert ("added—
"( ) In the case of any other land so acquired dispose of it for any forestry purpose which does not conflict with rational management provided he is satisfied that existing arrangements for access and amenity shall be continued.",").
One of the difficulties of the present Bill is that it leaves out the whole of subsection (2) of Section 39 of the 1967 Act; that is, all the existing powers in relation to the sale of land where you are allowed freely to dispose of land which, having been bought for forestry, was found not to be needed for forestry or not suitable for forestry. If you leave that out then you are left with the sole power of disposing of any land as the Minister thinks fit; and if, as we tried to do at Committee stage, time and again, we tried to restrict that in some way, we then find that by restricting in that way the Forestry Commission or the Minister cannot dispose of land which at present is possible, for useful purposes—it may be for widening a road or for footpaths or something like that. We find that because of the way he has extended his powers by getting rid of the existing powers and replacing them by this blanket power, if we only seek to amend that blanket power we shall get into difficulties about his being able to dispose of land for particular purposes.
So, instead of substituting something for the existing subsection (2) of Section 39, what I am doing is adding to the existing Section 39. Thus, we start by leaving the existing powers, so that he cannot use the argument, "Ah, but these are some reasonable things that the Forestry Commission is expected to do; to give land for this, that and the next thing. It can do it now, but by your seeking to restrict the power in the new amending Bill, then it would not be able to do that". So I add to it. So the existing power remains and we add, and within the addition we still retain the phrase "dispose of any land" in any way that the Minister likes, but,
"In the case of any other land so acquired dispose of it for any forestry purpose".
He has got to dispose of the land for forestry purposes. Apart from his existing powers he can still dispose of land, but we say only for forestry purposes, and it must not conflict with rational management
"provided he is satisfied that existing arrangements for access and amenity shall be continued".
I think this is a solution to one of the difficulties I found in seeking to amend the Bill earlier. We do want to safeguard all that has been done. The Forestry Commission is second to none in its regard for opening up the countryside and making available to people healthy recreation, picnic areas—all the other things it has done under its existing powers, and under the powers it gained under the Countryside Act and the Countryside (Scotland) Act. The Minister had some difficulty about knowing what "amenity" meant. I suggested to him that he should have a look at the Countryside Acts. It is there mentioned
166
more than once, and if it is understandable there it should be understandable here. It is always better for the draftsmen to use a word already in an Act of Parliament.
One of our main concerns on this side of the House is that we should never give a Minister what is virtually an unfettered power to do whatever he likes best, or he thinks is best. Bear in mind the importance of forestry; bear in mind the dedicated work that has been done. I have listened to Forestry Commissioners today and former chairmen of the Forestry Commission with whom, as Minister of State and Secretary of State, I worked. There was never a cross word; there was never any doubt about where we stood in relation to the co-operation that was required between the Minister and the commission. As the Minister said in reply to the last debate, there was only the one occasion to my knowledge when a direction had to be used, and then it was used to clarify matters and really to satisfy both the public and the Forestry Commission itself. There has never been anything other than that.
The land that we are going to sell now is land that was bought for and is suitable for forestry. That is the extension I make. It was bought for forestry and if we are really concerned about the extension of forestry in this country, and the forestry is not going to be carried on by the Forestry Commission, surely we should limit the disposal for that purpose, in other words for private forestry. The main thing is for the forestry interest to be maintained; and in maintaining that continued forestry interest we should continue the concern for rational management and for the existing arrangements for access and amenity. These things are very important from the point of view of the public. I think the public today probably knows more than ever about the Forestry Commission, about the work of the Forestry Commission, since the Forestry Commission opened up its whole areas to the public. Having built that up, surely we are not going to sell off land which is used for forestry, which was bought for forestry, and risk it being used for something other than forestry.
I can think of areas where there is wonderful forest country in Scotland. I do not know the Forest of Dean; I do not know whether the Forest of Dean knows anything about the Forestry Commission's work at Glen Trool. It should be familiar to the Minister of State; the Murrays came from down there.
The Earl of Mansfield: Certainly not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I can tell the noble Earl that the Murray that gave him his first title, the first Mansfield in his title, came from down there.
The Earl of Mansfield: It is Mansfield in Nottinghamshire.
Lord Ross of Marnock: All right; I am sorry.
The Earl of Mansfield: The second one is Mansfield in Middlesex.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, I know it is; but when

167
you take a territorial title, it does not mean to say that the Duke of Edinburgh comes from Edinburgh. Indeed, that applies to many other territorial titles that are held in this House at the present time. It is very surprising what the noble Earl says about that. I took the trouble some time ago to read the history of the first Earl of Mansfield who was, of course, a luminary at the Bar here.
Let us get back to Glen Trool. If the Minister of State does not know that area, he should; he should see the number of people who go there at week-ends from all over the country. This has been opened up. It is a very historic part of Scotland. There are many people who would dearly like to develop it for speculative purposes, not just for forestry but for other purposes. We should not even risk that; and that is why we put in, first of all, forestry, and, secondly, that when we do sell it for forestry purposes we should try to maintain, and ensure within the sale, that existing arrangements for access and amenity shall be continued. From the point of view of our already retaining the existing powers of sale, we allow further disposals but limit the purposes for which these disposals are made, and it can be done in terms of the sale. We might not get as much money for it if we are going to limit it, but we have to accept that.
We are talking about the heritage of the whole country and we should not take a risk on that kind of thing. So I sincerely hope that this amendment will prove acceptable to the House. The Government must realise how offensive it is to come along with a Bill which says purely and simply that the Minister may dispose for any purpose any land acquired under the section; that is offensive to anybody who has any interest in or concern for forestry, to the whole history since 1919 of the Forestry Commission and all who have served in it.
It is not good enough to say, "We are going to do it by guidelines; I sent a letter" to somebody or other. We are all interested in these letters. I got one handed to me as I sat down today. With all due respect, that was just an accident; I suppose they suddenly decided that I might be interested and should get that letter as well. But that is not good enough. The only guarantee of what is right, and what the Government feel now should be done, is to have it in the Bill, and if the Government want to do so they have got to come to the House to change something as important as that. I therefore beg leave to move Amendment No. 3, taking with it Amendment No. 4.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I put to my noble friend a point arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock has said? It is some time ago now, but I seem to remember in my constituency at least one case, I think two cases, where the Forestry Commission acquired land for mixed use, forestry and agriculture. If I remember rightly, in one case they disposed of the agricultural part of the land; I do not know what happened in the other case. I only say this because some doubt is therefore raised as to the proposition of Lord Ross of Marnock, that land which has been acquired for forestry should be used for forestry. In some cases it has been mixed use, both forestry and agriculture.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that they were able to dispose of the part that was not used for forestry. I am continuing within my amendment that power so that they could still do what he thinks it is right to do.
Lord Drumalbyn: Yes, my Lords, but the point is that the noble Lord is trying, as I understand it, to insist that forestry land should be disposed of only for forestry. Is that not so?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am retaining the power. I shall read the words that are being retained. It says:
"The Minister may … sell any land acquired by him under this section which in his opinion is not needed, or ought not to be used, for the purpose of afforestation or any other purpose connected with forestry".
That is being retained. Under the Government's suggestion, that is being wiped out and it is one of his objections, when we come to the restrictive amendments, that one could not do the kind of thing that one can do now and which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says has been done, quite rightly, in Dumfriesshire. The fact that they have been able to do it previously, the fact that I am retaining the powers that they have and am adding to their powers in a restrictive way, does not mean to say that what the noble Lord seeks to have done will be stopped by my amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may claim, the purpose of these amendments is to constrain the disposal powers in the Bill. He begins by excluding totally the open-ended power in Clause 1. The amendment leaves in being the whole of the existing disposal powers in Section 39(2) of the Forestry Act 1967 and then he goes on to add a new subsection. The amendment looks to the provisions of Section 39(2)(b) of the 1967 Act, which permits the sale of land in Scotland if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of rational land management and would facilitate the discharge by the Commissioners of any of their functions.
The existing provision has proved too inhibiting to allow sales of forestry land on any scale, and the general application of that part relating to rational land management would certainly not permit an expanded disposals programme of the kind which the Government have in mind, even more so when it is linked with the provision restricting disposals to land to be used for forestry purpose. So what in fact the noble Lord is doing is to draw into England and Wales the present restrictions which already exist in Scotland.
There are a number of difficulties and I know that they are now familiar to your Lordships. In the first place, although the great majority of land to be sold will be forestry land and it will be purchased for a forestry purpose, there are problems about ensuring that it is always used for that purpose and that is particularly the case in England and Wales, where a covenant of this nature cannot be enforced against successive purchasers. But, of course, I should remind the House that in the ordinary course of events,

169
the felling licensing provisions will ensure that normally plantations may not be felled without the Forestry Commission's consent, and that where appropriate replanting conditions are imposed. In case any of your Lordships were minded to think that this was some sort of vague and unenforceable condition, I should say that a person who is in breach of the condition can end up in the dock of the appropriate court. It is a criminal offence.
Secondly, the noble Lord's amendment does not indicate who is to decide whether or not the transaction conflicts with rational land management. Presumably it is intended to be the Minister, but it does not say so and as it stands it would be open to anyone, either a party to the transaction, or perhaps even somebody with an interest in opposing the bargain, as it were, to claim that the necessary conditions of sale were not being complied with.
The next point is that the noble Lord, of course, is anxious to ensure that existing access and amenity provisions will be continued if the sale proceeds. A very high proportion of the commission's forests are normally open to access on foot, even if they do not attract many visitors or no special amenities are provided. It follows, therefore, that all these forests would be caught by this provision and unless public access and amenity after sale could be assured by some means, the scope for disposal would be very limited.
We have stated that the importance of public access is one of the factors the Commission will be required to take into account in deciding whether a particular area should be sold. This is laid down in the guidelines and, where access is of major importance, as your Lordships will recall from previous debates, either the commission will not sell the area at all, but will retain it in its ownership, or else it will make use of the sale and leaseback arrangements. Therefore, I cannot accept that no area should be disposed of if public access has been allowed and I cannot agree, for the reasons which I have given, that maintenance of these types of facilities should be a condition of sale. If there are rights of way, they will not be affected, but to try to bind private purchasers to maintain public access and amenity would be difficult to enforce, particularly in England and Wales.
It goes a good deal beyond mere law. It would be inappropriate to require a purchaser to allow the public on his land as a legal right without any form of control. I suggest that it would be unreasonable to expect him to maintain the facilities originally provided by the commission. I have said previously that, in times, for instance, when there may be a particularly hazardous fire risk, the Forestry Commission reserves the right to exclude the public if, in its opinion, day-to-day management makes that necessary, and it can control such exercises of its discretion through its by-laws. A purchaser, of course, would have no such rights.
I do not agree, as I have said previously, that a sale to a private purchaser will automatically lead to the exclusion of the public. Most private owners now have an enlightened attitude towards public access and again as I have said previously, and I reiterate it now, certainly in my experience major purchasers such as the institutions and pension funds, in particular, would go a long way not to prejudice public goodwill by shutting the door to access on a reasonable and
170
regular basis. But local authorities, even so, can, of course, negotiate access agreements with the new owners if they think it appropriate.
For all those reasons, but particularly for the first reason that I gave, that I think this is in another form a potential unacceptable feter on the power of disposal, I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not accept most of what the noble Earl has said. The Minister says that there are certain doubts about who will determine whether or not certain aspects of this amendment will be carried out in relation to rational management and so on. The situation is exactly the same because I am leaving in subsection (2) the words, "the Minister may". It is "the Minister may" that must be satisfied, as in the present statute. So if there are difficulties in my amendment, there are difficulties in the present statute.
The Minister came back to the old argument about access and the amenity provisions already made. First of all, it limits any restriction on the freedom to where there is access, and to where there are amenities. Of course, as I said, it may affect the price you will get for the land if you are to fetter in some way. But perhaps I could suggest to the Minister that just occasionally he should think beyond forestry to the national heritage in the countryside, where provision has been made, where the Forestry Commission has done something and where the Countryside Commission has done something. But he says "Oh, no. We must have the right to be able to sell that and forget that amenity provision has been made." I think that that is disgraceful.
We must look a little beyond the desire of the Treasury. This is a Treasury Bill; it is not an agricultural Minister's Bill or a forestry Minister's Bill. This is a Treasury Bill. The word has gone forth "You will save so much each year for the next five years by disposing of land. Go ahead and do it". Of course, the more you restrict in the guidelines—quite apart from the Bill—the disposal powers of the Forestry Commission in relation to the kind of land that they will sell or where they will sell, does not mean to say that they still do not have to sell land. They will have to sell more elsewhere. This is one of the troubles about the Bill. The extent to which we proceed with this year after year, the more we shall undermine the whole position of the Forestry Commission at present.
No, I cannot accept what the Government say about this. These are just excuses. The Minister has said that at present there is difficulty as regards Scotland. Many of us are quite pleased that there is difficulty; that they have forestry in Scotland which they cannot sell. Long may it continue. But why does not the noble Earl be honest about this whole business? He has been told that he must not accept any restrictions at all—which means any amendments—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very annoyed. It means that once again I shall be in their black books. I cannot accept it and certainly I hope that, as regards this amendment, I shall be joined in the Lobby by many other people in the House.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Bishopston, L.

Molloy, L.

Blease, L.

Oram, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Peart, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Collison, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Segal, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Galpern, L.

Simon, V.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Thurso, V.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Vernon, L.

Janner, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

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

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Halsbury, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hatherton, L.

Alport, L.

Hives, L.

Auckland, L.

Holderness, L.

Avon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Baker, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kilmany, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinross, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kintore, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cairns, E.

Loudoun, C.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Chelwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mansfield, E.

Colwyn, L.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigton, L.

Middleton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Newall, L.

Dulverton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Falkland, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Reay, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

172

Selkirk, E.

Vivian, L.

Shannon, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Stamp, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Swinfen, L.

Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wigram, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it is now my duty to call Amendment No. 2.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this probably is the most important amendment in the whole Bill, because what is the point of writing very elaborate and complex amendments when you can use the Bill that is there? It know it caused the Public Bill Office a little trouble, but if we go to the original clause that we are amending your Lordships will notice: "In Section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967, for subsection (2)"—something shall be substituted. So I just put an "(a)" at the end, so that "(2)(a)" shall be left out and something substituted.
Therefore, we have all the power that the Minister wants in relation to (2)(a), but I have retained (2)(b). Subsection (2)(b) of course says that the Minister may,
"in the case of land so acquired, in Scotland, sell it if he is satisfied that the sale—

(i) is desirable in the interests of rational land management; and

(ii) would facilitate the discharge by the Commissioners of any of their functions".

So Scots only in this one to vote, and the English can rest assured that they are giving full power to the Minister to do as he likes. That is really the substance of the amendment. We leave out subsection (2)(a), and we give him the power to
"dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section".
But, when it comes to Scotland, he has to be satisfied that the sale is desirable in the interests of good land management—I do not think anyone should object to that; in Scotland anyway—and that it,
"would facilitate the discharge by the Commissioners of any of their functions".
I know that the Minister says, "Oh, we have found this a bit difficult". This Government would find anything difficult that was sensible. When he suggests that rational land management should come into it, well it really is anathema that anything should be rational in relation to land as against the full freedom to dispose of it as you like to hotel developers, holiday home developers, chalets in the woods, or anything else. If you want that in England you can have it, but so far as Scotland is concerned we do not.
I think that most of the Forestry Commission land under forestry in the whole country is in Scotland. It is certainly true that most of the plantable lands that have been acquired, and the land reserves, are in Scotland. So there is fairly good sense from a forestry point of view, as well as anything else, in respect of

173
this particular amendment. That is why I thought that I should test the Scottishness of the minister in charge. Let him forget Nottingham, or wherever else it is that he comes from, or say he comes from.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I did not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: He did not, my Lords. Let him remember something about the forestry developments in the Highlands; the forestry developments in the Borders; and the forestry developments in Ayrshire, Dumfriesshire and Galloway, and what we have achieved there, and let us retain that as much as we can. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I am moving this amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as one who does not come from the Forest of Dean, nor, proceeding in a northerly direction, from Middlesex, nor Nottinghamshire, nor even from Morayshire, but originally from Moravia, a descendant of a pirate who is alleged to have raped Macbeth's daughter, I think I can take a view on this somewhat chauvinist amendment in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Ross. We are happily still in the United Kingdom, and this is a United Kingdom Bill. It says, and makes provision for, what the Government are to do through their forestry ministers, of whom there are three in different parts of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord has not produced one single reason why Scotland should be singled out for different treatment from England or Wales. It is different of course geographically, and speaking in the forestry sense, 80 per cent. of private planting goes on in Scotland, and of course it has a very large part of the forestry resource within its borders. I do not know whether the noble Lord is serious in moving this matter. I do not know whether he intends to press it. We had down in Committee an amendment excluding Scotland totally from the Bill, and I do not know whether this is the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Ross, wants to press the matter, but I can only treat his amendment seriously and say that I very much hope that your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble Earl asks me why we should treat Scotland differently. Why did we treat Scotland differently in the last Bill we were discussing today? Why did we not treat it the same as England? It concerned local government, and dealt with the same kind of services as obtain in England and Wales, but the treatment in respect of Scotland was far more harsh. Why did we treat Scotland differently in the Forestry Act 1967, which I have just quoted? Section 39(2) indicates how a Minister can dispose of land at the present time. They are not going to be bothered about subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b) because they are wiping them both out, but (2)(b), as I am sure the Minister is aware, says:
"in the case of land so acquired in Scotland, sell it if he is satisfied that the sale—

(i) is desirable in the interests of rational land management",

et cetera. That does not apply in England, so the countries are already different. If he knows his forestry he will know that what is done in this clause,
174
and in the amended clause, the new power, is without prejudice to the general powers of the forestry Ministers in England and Wales—there are now two of them—under the Agriculture Act 1947. Scotland is treated differently again.
The noble Earl shows his ignorance of the subject when he comes along and says, "We are all in the United Kingdom, and we are all treated the same". With all due respect, we are not; and we are not the same in forestry. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not limit the powers of easy-handed disposal of forestry land that was bought for agricultural purposes. Whatever is done in England, we could do something different in Scotland. It is treated differently, but what the Government are now doing is treating them both exactly the same.
Will the Minister say an additional word to justify his feeling that we are all, to quote his words, "Thank God, in the United Kingdom", implying that we are all treated the same? We are not. We shall have another Bill before us from another place on education as soon as we have got rid of this one. In education we are very different from England and Wales. Will the Minister then tell us that we shall amend the Scottish education Acts to make them exactly the same as the English ones? It is quite nonsensical. I had not intended to press this amendment, but, after the Ministers' reply, I feel that I must.
7.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Maelor, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Bishopston, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Segal, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

White, B.

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

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Colwyn, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Auckland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bathurst, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Davidson, V.

Belstead, L.

de Clifford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dulverton, L.

Cairns, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Falkland, V.

Chelwood, L.

Ferrers, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ferrier, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Fortescue, E.

175

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Newall, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Gowrie, E.

Onslow, E.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Reay, L.

Hatherton, L.

Renton, L.

Holderness, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kinross, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kintore, E.

Stamp, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Loudoun, C.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mansfield, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Marley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wigram, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
7.9 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should take a dinner break now. I therefore beg to move that further consideration of the Bill on Report be adjourned until 7.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 until 7.50 p.m.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Drumalbyn): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Amendment No. 5, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is incorrect in form. I shall call it in correct form after Amendment No. 8. It is in fact the amendment numbered 8A on the separate sheet.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("may") to end of line 9 and insert—

("(a) subject to the restrictions in paragraph (b) below, dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section; and

(b) in the case of the Forest of Dean, sell any land acquired by him under this section which in his opinion is not needed, or ought not to be used, for the purpose of afforestation or any purpose connected with forestry, or exchange any such land for other land more suitable for either of the said purposes and pay or receive money for equality of exchange.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This amendment is exactly the same as the amendment that I moved at the Committee stage. On that occasion I made a long speech, which I shall not again inflict upon your Lordships—
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should have stated
176
that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 8A.
Lord McNair: My Lords, as I was saying, I shall not again inflict my speech on the House, but I think that for the record it is desirable that we recapitulate, very briefly, the reasons why we believe that the Forest of Dean is a special case. We believe that the people who live in the Forest of Dean are uniquely disadvantaged and therefore uniquely endangered by the Bill as it stands, because for various historical reasons they have no legal rights of common or of access. Instead they have customary privileges, which are fully recognised by the Forestry Commission, and it is difficult to see how these de facto privileges could possibly be safeguarded if any part of the Forest of Dean were to pass into private hands.
That, in very brief outline, is the reason why the Bill provoked such a remarkable and spontaneous outbreak of concern and protest in the Forest of Dean. I should like to assure the House that there was nothing engineered about it; it was a spontaneous outburst of worry, and it was I think channelled towards this House with great skill by the people in the Forest of Dean.
When I moved the amendment at Committee stage it received widespread support from all quarters of the Chamber, and noble Lords who were then present will remember that at the conclusion of the debate the noble Earl undertook to consult his fellow forestry Ministers and to come forward at a later stage with a fresh proposal. Following that I resubmitted my amendment, informing the noble Earl that I was doing so. I did that partly to show that we were in earnest, but chiefly in the expectation that some new proposal from the Government would mean that I would not have to move the amendment at this point. At one stage we thought that we could proceed via the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but that did not prove possible. No fresh proposal emerged from the Government, and so we continued with the amendment as at the Committee stage.
Then I received two letters from the noble Earl. He seemed surprised that I had not acknowledged them, but where I live there are no weekend posts, and it was quite impossible to acknowledge them. But I do so now, and I can say only that they brought me—to use his words—great joy. The first letter contains these words:
"we accept that the Forest of Dean is a special case and we are prepared to exclude the former Crown woodlands in the Forest from the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, except for the kinds of sale which have been traditionally carried out under the existing powers".
Nobody wants to stop those.
There was at that stage some worry in the Government's mind about the precise definition of the Forest of Dean, and it was thought that perhaps a plan or map would be needed. However, on further consideration, the noble Earl wrote me a second letter, and I should like to read the concluding words of it. It had been decided that a plan was not needed, and the letter went on:
"We nevertheless still wish to put down our own amendment at Third Reading because of some minor drafting changes that counsel has advised should be made to the one you have tabled. These will in no way change the substance of your amendment …"

177
My Lords, how could I read those letters with anything but joy? I thank the noble Earl very much for the thought that has gone into this matter.
I do not wish to prevent any other noble Lords who wish to speak from doing so, and so I shall postpone for a few minutes my formal withdrawal of the amendment. I should like to say to the noble Earl that just after we adjourned I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, to thank the Government on his behalf; he was unable to stay. He suggested to me—and I accept the suggestion—that we ask the Government whether their Third Reading amendment can reach us in sufficient time for us to consult fully the people in the forest. I have little doubt that the noble Earl the Minister will be able to accede to that request. I have previously complained in the House that we are so polite that when one really wants to thank someone it is difficult to find words to do so, but I assure the noble Earl that 50,000 foresters would wish to thank him most warmly for the consideration which the Government have given to their case. I beg to move.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to take advantage of the postponement of the withdrawal of the amendment to say how glad I am that the people of the Forest of Dean have had the assurances and will have the amendment that they were seeking. I was sorely tempted when the noble Lord, Lord McNair, suggested that I should incorporate something for the Forest of Dean in my Amendment No. 1, because looking back I feel confident that with the peerage of Gloucestershire behind me I should have carried Amendment No. 1 quite easily. However, I do not think that it would have been consistent to have included the amendment. Nevertheless I am most gratified that the people of the Forest of Dean have received the protection that they were seeking.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that we had a good and, indeed, full debate on this amendment in Committee. I agreed to consider what we might do to reflect the mood of your Lordships at a later stage of the Bill. The noble Lord put his amendment down again, and I wrote to him. I hasten to say that there was no criticism in my remarks that he had not acknowledged my letters. I was merely concerned because I particularly wanted him to get the first letter in order to save trouble and expense to those of his supporters, who in one connection or another might want to attend the House.
As I promised, we discussed the Forest of Dean—that is to say, the forestry Ministers, my colleagues and I—and we accept that there are unique circumstances. We might have hoped that the assurances which I gave your Lordships on a previous occasion would have been enough to satisfy your Lordships, but, in the circumstances, what I did was to advise the noble Lord that we are prepared to exclude the former Crown woodlands and the Forest of Dean from the provisions of Clause 1, except for those types of sale which have been traditionally carried out in the forest under the existing powers; and such sales
178
are, I know, acceptable to the noble Lord and to the local authority. I will, of course, send the noble Lord a copy of the proposed amendment as soon as it has been drafted. I explained to the noble Lord in my letter that there are some drafting changes which need to be made to his amendment, and we await final advice.
I think that on the previous occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said in ringing tones that he saw nothing wrong with the drafting of Lord McNair's amendment. My noble friend Lord Colville—I do not know whether he is in his place—who for some weary years sat with me on the Opposition Benches, and I, know to our cost how what seems to be perfect drafting somehow becomes unacceptable to the parliamentary draftsman; and it is in those circumstances that we await the final advice. We shall have to move an alternative amendment on Third Reading, but I give the undertaking to the House now that the amendment which I shall table and move will meet the wishes of the House; and, as I say, I have undertaken to send a copy of it to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, as soon as I am in a position to do so. On that basis I hope the noble Lord will now withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Of course, I fully accept his offer and his assurances, and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 8, after ("purpose") insert ("which does not conflict with rational land management").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, very briefly I should like to move Amendment No. 8. I do not think it is much of a restriction, bearing in mind the purpose and the whole reason for the Forestry Commission, that when it disposes of land it should do so in a way that does not conflict with rational land management. I do not think it is too much to ask that these words should be included. After all, from the point of view of the Forestry Commission itself it is very difficult to understand why on earth it should sell land and place itself and its own work at risk by ignoring rational land management.
That is the simplicity of this amendment. It is not all that restrictive, but where it does restrict it does so in favour of the Commission and in favour of local agriculture as well. It is one of the things that we have been concerned about over the years, that there should be this correlation of the interests of agriculture and of forestry. Here, where we have the chance to do something about it or, indeed, of destroying rational land management, we should take this step and ensure that that is not done, and that disposals of land are such that they do not conflict with rational land management. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because I think it means exactly what it says. The suspicion in people's minds is, of course, that the land will be sold irrationally, and

179
that instead of disposing of forests or land in a way which would not conflict with the long-term interests of the Forestry Commission and the general good of forestry, land will be sold simply in order to raise money, and that that will be the first consideration. I think that the interests of rational land management means a lot more. It also means the interests of the members of the commission and their devotion to their job. If the Minister is going to dispose of land as he wishes for the reasons of raising money, without consideration of the ultimate good of forestry and the ultimate good of the country, then he is going to upset the commission and he is not going to get good people to serve on it. The Minister has given assurances that this will be the case; that written into the practice of the Forestry Commission and into its remit is exactly this sort of thing; and I do not see why the Minister should object to putting this simple phrase into the Bill that we have before us. I hope that he will look at and accept this simple and, if I may say so, very rational amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, once more the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is going back to Section 39(2)(b) of the 1967 Act, which permits the sale of land in Scotland if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of rational land management and would facilitate the discharge by the commissioners of any of their functions. He has changed the wording a little. But this provision has proved too inhibiting to allow sales of forestry land on any scale, and the general application of that part relating to rational land management would not permit an expanded disposals programme of the kind the Government have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, apparently thinks that the amendment is comprehensible and means what it says. But it suffers from the defect that it does not specify whose opinion is to govern whether or not any disposal is in accord with rational land management. I suppose it would be for the Minister to decide; but in the absence of any indication the door would be left open for any individual or organisation to challenge a sale, possibly for vexatious reasons.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said at moments that he does not continue to oppose the principle of the Bill, but in fact this amendment goes a long way to do just that. It is another way to saying what the noble Lord has said before on a number of occasions, and I hope he will not press it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is distressing to find that the Government are not prepared to accept this. The noble Earl asks, "Who is going to decide whether it is rational land management?" We can easily get rid of that. If he will accept it I will put down a simple amendment, and the simple amendment will be of the kind that the Government are very fond of—saying, "that in the opinion of the Minister". That will save him from any vexatious customer who comes along seeking to frustrate the beneficial and generous desires of the Government in relation to the disposal of land. Unfortuntaely, the Minister is not himself taking notes but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is doing it for him. We have been
180
told already that we are going to have an amendment at Third Reading. Why not have two?
I am sure that everyone agrees with this principle. It is sensible; and there will be a certain measure of restriction. But is it not a desirable restriction that when the Government are proposing to dispose of land by selling it, in the selection of land they are going to dispose of and the way they are going to dispose of it, they should bear in mind the principles of rational land use. I thought we had all agreed about that when we discussed forestry before coming to this "bring and buy" sale that we are going to have every year in relation to forestry. Everyone agreed with it. Why not now?
I repeat the offer. If the Government will accept this amendment or say that they accept its principle, that it is right, then I will put down an amendment. I have a reasonable amount of experience in drafting and of the kind of phrases that Secretaries of State and Ministers like so that they cannot be taken to court about it—simple phrases like "in the opinion of the Minister". They are easy to put in. I could draft it now if the House would be prepared to accept the addition as a manuscript amendment. The noble Earl may want more time to think about it—I know that he has plenty of time to do it; he has to earn his increased salary that we gave him today and I am here to see that he earns it—that both the noble Lords earn it.
The Earl of Mansfield: Not yet.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I know, my Lords. It is not until July. But let us see whether he is worth it; otherwise we might remove him before July. This is the way in which he could endear himself to the House—to say that what Ross is saying is sensible and that he agrees with it. I will put down an amendment protecting the Minister, dearly as I love him. On that understanding, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Segal): My Lords, I have to call Amendment No. 8A, a manuscript amendment, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 8A:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("in accordance with regulations made under this section.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8A and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 11. It was my original intention—and to some extent I carried it into effect—to speak to these two amendments at the same time as I spoke to Amendment No. 1. My noble friend asked me to separate them, so I will move this one in case he has anything further to say.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think I may have done my noble friend a disservice to the extent that when I came to prepare for this stage of the Bill it seemed to me that my noble friend's amendments overlapped rather less than has subsequently transpired,

181
and in the way in which the debate went noble Lords in fact spoke to both amendments pretty freely. Many of the objections which I, and other noble Lords, made about my noble friend's amendments at that stage apply equally to the amendment that he now moves. With the leave of the House, I could go into the full matters which we have already discussed, but I do not want to do so unless I must. I still say that the inclusion of these guidelines (because that is what it would be) in a statutory instrument would be a unique way for Ministers to instruct a department for which they are responsible on the execution of the Ministers' own powers. I say that and I hope that I distinguish this case from the example which my noble friend took from our mutual noble friend Lord Renton and the Home Office.
I am confident that the guidelines that forestry Ministers have given the commissioners, in the form in which they have been provided, coupled with the lease-back alternative and the relatively limited nature of the disposal programme, should provide all the safeguards necessary to ensure that the programme is carried out sensibly and with the minimum affect on the various aspects which concern noble Lords on both sides of the House. Copies of these guidelines are now in the Library. The document is a public document and it can be used by anyone as a source of reference to gauge whether the disposal programme as it has developed is being conducted in a way that we have laid down, and it will provide ample opportunity for inquiries and complaint if it is not.
There are legal and technical objections to my noble friend's amendment with which I do not propose to regale the House unless asked to do so. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind that we are going to discuss amendments which my noble friend Lord Dulverton and I have put down which, broadly speaking, seek to achieve the same ends, in the particular circumstances of this amendment, I hope my noble friend will withdraw.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that. In fact, I think the arguments that could be adduced in favour of Amendments Nos. 8A and 11 are even more cogent than those I adduced for Amendment No. 1. I think I know what the result of pressing this amendment would be, and I do not see any particular purpose in doing that. It is true that copies of the guidelines (which I think ought to be in subordinate legislation) are in the Library, we have all seen them and are enlightened to that extent as to what will happen. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 8A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.19 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("; but he will first consult with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission or, in the case of land in Scotland the Countryside Commission for Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winstanley, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. I apologise for being on my feet again
182
so soon but a concatenation of misfortunes has prevented all the signatories from being here tonight and so, at very short notice, I have been asked to move it. The shortness of the notice will be reflected in the shortness of my speech. This is a very gentle, sensible and undemanding amendment which I hope the Government will accept. I may say that if my noble friend had listened to the many voluntary bodies which are concerned with these affairs the amendment would have been more far-reaching. It is a minimal amendment.
It deals with the point that a great deal of the Forestry Commission land contains within it many of the most important habitats of some of our rarer fauna and flora. It also contains some of the most precious and delightful areas of recreation, whether one's preference be for camping, walking, birdwatching or any other lawful pursuit.
In these two fields of conservation and recreation the Government have three statutory advisory bodies: the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Since we have the statutory advisory bodies, why should we not use them? If it is answered that of course Ministers when in doubt would always seek the advice of all these bodies, I would argue that Ministers do not necessarily know. They may simply be unaware about some local factor which would be known to the relevant advisory body. It is their job to know where there is a particular habitat or a particularly sensitive recreational requirement. Should we not use these advisory bodies, and should we not ensure that future Ministers will also use them by writing this very modest requirement into this Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, may I add my concern to that already expressed? The requirements of this moderate amendment are of great importance because the House has spent time looking at amendments—and I heard the figure of 600 or 800 mentioned—to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. There is enormous interest in the country, as noble Lords will know, about the preservation of wildlife, whether animals or plants.
Also most important is the habitat. Without the right habitat, many of these species will not survive. In a Bill where Clause 1 has been often mentioned, it gives the Minister the right to dispose of land for any purpose whatsoever, maybe to any commercial concern whose interests—mainly financial as they would apparently have to be under the measure—would have scant regard to conservation, ecology and wildlife. Indeed, their aims and objectives in using the land when disposed of might conflict sharply with the wishes of Parliament, especially with regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I should have thought it a minimum requirement that consultation should take place with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and other bodies which have shown concern on these matters in the past few months in particular.
Even if the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, I hope that he may give the House some assurances which I am sure many here and outside in the country would wish if the provisions of the measure to which I have made reference are to be observed. This is a most important matter and the Minister

183
would be well advised to give the assurances which I am sure we all want.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, having recently retired from the Scottish Advisory Committee of the Nature Conservancy and also being a keen nature conservationist, I have sympathy with Lord McNair's amendment and also this applies to the Countryside Commission aspects. While not trying to anticipate the thoughts of the Minister, is it not a fact that the Forestry Commission are already very well aware of the need to give consideration to these factors and are, as we have heard earlier, in very close touch with those two bodies? I cannot believe they would sell any important areas without consultation. The Wildlife and Countryside Bill reinforces the powers in these respects, and this amendment is required.
It is not always the Forestry Commission who have consideration for the factors which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, wishes to safeguard. Up and down the country I would suggest that private owners—whether small landowners or bigger landowners—have given a great deal of consideration to the factors which the noble Lord is intent on protecting.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I briefly support this amendment. I do so in a peculiar way. Nobody dislikes more than I do the hold-up to agricultural practice through the activities of many of the conservation bodies. The conservation bodies have run away with themselves in many cases and many of their desires seem wholly impractical to the country people who have to make their living by the land and to the people who have to make their living from the trees. Nevertheless, consultation by the Minister is probably a good thing, in that while the Forestry Commission may be wholly sympathetic and wholly in touch (as the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, has said) in this case, as I keep reiterating, this is really, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Ross, a Treasury Bill, and they are looking for money. Therefore the Minister should consult these bodies often, as I do not sympathise with the state bodies.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I was going to say before the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, spoke, that my noble friend Lord Dulverton had shot my fox; but in fact the creature limped out of its burrow.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, Lord Dulverton never shoots foxes.
The Earl of Mansfield: But I, as a Scot, can thank him for apparently doing it for me. That is the point. However, my Lords, the creature has limped on its way through the mouth (if that is right) of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I am not going to go back to the old saw about this being a Treasury Bill. The short point is that the disposals programme is going to be chosen and carried out by the Forestry Commission. Ministers will only come into it in a way which Ministers do come into these things, at a somewhat advanced stage.
One thing is perfectly obvious as this Bill has wound its way through your Lordships' House: the Forestry
184
Commission enjoys a very large measure of support and confidence from all sides of the House. I believe that we can leave it to exercise its good judgment and sense over the admittedly rather difficult matters of conservation. I remind your Lordships that, like other Government departments, the Forestry Commission is required under the Countryside Act to have regard in exercising its functions relating to land to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty of the countryside. This is enjoined upon it by Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 and Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968.
The term "natural beauty" is construed under the Acts as including the conservation of flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features. There is no evidence that the Forestry Commission is failing to comply with this statutory requirement. If this amendment were written into the Bill there would be an additional statutory obligation on the part of the commission to consult the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission on any disposals. This would include all such disposals, such as various schemes which happen from time to time, like boundary adjustments and road widening schemes. It would give rise to time-consuming and, as I suggest, totally unnecessary bureaucracy. The guidelines which have been referred to so often in this House have been published and are in the Library. In planning its disposals programme, the Forestry Commission will be taking special care obviously to avoid jeopardising the scientific interest when it makes up its mind, first, whether there is to be a sale at all and, secondly, if there is, whether there is to be a sale and leaseback.
I suggest that it is these factors to which the commission will address itself when it comes to select areas for sale. It will have very much in mind the interests of conservation and the use of the forest for public access, recreation and that sort of thing. So although I fully appreciate the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who moved this amendment in the place of his noble friend, I believe that the guidelines offer very real safeguards and that these new fetters, which would be written into the Bill if this amendment were accepted, are unnecessary, time-consuming and, in the event, are such that the Commission's labours would be made more difficult and the cause of conservation, which is in fact dear to all our hearts, would not be advanced one whit. It is in that light that I ask the noble Lord to reflect and to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his very comprehensive answer. As I moved this on behalf of a noble friend, I hope he will not think I am being difficult if I reserve the right for my noble friend to reintroduce this amendment, should he wish to do so, at Third Reading. By that time he will, of course, have had a chance to read the noble Earl's speech. For the moment, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("(3) The power of disposal in subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to Forest Parks nor to Crown Woods.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems that we are not making very much progress in trying to have some safeguards in this measure, which is summed up in Clause 1, which is really the essence of the Bill. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, paragraph 1 refers to Clause 1 which is a substitution for a provision
"enabling Forestry Ministers to dispose, without restriction or qualification, of land acquired for forestry purposes".
Here in this amendment we want the power of disposal in subsection (2) not to apply to forest parks or Crown woods. Forest parks make a significant contribution to the countryside, apart from timber and other aspects with which they are concerned; and of course so do the Crown estates. In the last annual report of the Crown Estates Commissioners we read that, in all, the Crown estates have 13,000 acres under timber and another 4,300 let to the Forestry Commission; so that is a very significant area of land used for forestry purposes.
The Minister a few moments ago referred to the care of the Forestry Commission. One accepts, of course, that they are very careful custodians of the land under their care, both in preserving and extending the range of timber for pulp and similar purposes and of course in the preservation of wildlife, amenity care, conservation and other things. But it is not the Forestry Commission which is going to dispose of this land; it is the Minister, and the Minister will not be guided by such considerations as I have mentioned but by the consideration of Clause 2, which tells us very clearly that—
"There shall be paid out of the Forestry Fund into the Consolidated Fund such sums as the Ministers may from time to time with the approval of the Treasury direct".
So this is really a Treasury Bill, even though the Minister does not like to hear that claim made. It is the Minister who will dispose of the land and not the Forestry Commission. He may well be advised by the Commission on what is rational in forestry management. He may be advised about not selling land which should be considered as having a special importance, but if he has got to find money at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Forestry Commission's coffers year after year, then some of the more delicate considerations which have motivated noble Lords here today on a range of things will take second place.
We are here concerned in this amendment with forest parks and with the Crown woods to which I, have made reference, and also, without infringing the debate on another amendment which will follow later, the National Trust and the Church Commissioners. Some of those bodies—indeed all of them—have special responsibilities. The Church Commissioners have land which is leased to the Forestry Commission. The Crown Estates Commissioners are in the same position, as is the National Trust, and so on. Duties are laid on them to use the land in a certain way, but if it is leased to the Forestry Commission and the Minister wants to override all the considerations which apply to those who are custodians of the land, such as these various bodies—and there are undoubtedly others as well—then there is no protection if the land is disposed of, regardless of the
186
views of the bodies I have mentioned and of others, because the protection disappears and the land can be sold for other purposes.
With regard to the National Trust, if the land is planted there may be some safeguards but if it is not planted the land can be used for other purposes which of course may be held to be a priority rather than the proper use to which the land was originally dedicated. I think there is a very strong case, where land is held by the Forestry Commission on behalf of other people or organisations with special responsibilities, for safeguards so that the land is returned to those bodies or, better still, the land which was leased to the Forestry Commission should not be disposed of in the same way as other land which may be held by the Forestry Commission. If the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, I hope he will give assurances to the bodies I have mentioned that at least the land which the Forestry Commission has acquired from them, under lease or otherwise, will not be disposed of at all, or, if it is, at least the purposes after disposal shall be in keeping with the original intention held by those bodies.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, we had a good debate in Committee on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, I think, moved a very similar amendment. This amendment is rather less specific than the last. It does not, for instance, define "Crown woods", but I do not complain about it for that reason. The Crown woods in question are of course those that were transferred to the custody of the Forestry Commission under the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923 and orders which have been made under the Act. There are a large number of these areas up and down the country, but the two most famous and most significant areas are the Forest of Dean and the New Forest.
We have discussed the Forest of Dean at length and I have given to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, the undertaking that I have: that I would table an amendment which would in effect exclude the Forest of Dean in the way in which he would like—except, of course, for those sales which are traditional to the forest. The Forest of Dean is a special case and it has a unique history. But, rather more importantly than that, it has an absence of established common rights which means that, to an extent, the inhabitants are, so to speak, rather vulnerable. The same cannot be said for the New Forest. There are well established legal rights and, although it has a special status, it is not quite on the same plane as the Forest of Dean. We have made it abundantly clear that there are to be no wholesale disposals of the New Forest; in fact, any disposals will be limited to the type which has been disposed of under the existing powers.
If I may just stop there for a moment, may I say that if any Government tried to go beyond that there would be an outcry, and nothing is further from our minds. Nevertheless, to make doubly sure, special reference has been made to the New Forest and, indeed, to others in the guidelines which are available in the Library. The rest of the old Crown woodlands are not of any particular significance as such, but the various factors set out in the guidelines will, of course, apply to them. So that, if there are any factors which

187
would make the Forestry Commission come to the view either that it should not sell such an area at all, or that such a sale should be by way of sale and leaseback, then that is the policy which the commission will pursue.
The same will apply to forest parks. They are not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, but the use of forests for public access and recreation is one of the factors which will be taken into account in selecting areas for sale. These parks have been specially designated by the commissioners because of their special features, and because of the scope for access and recreation, and obviously this will weigh very heavily with the commissioners when they are selecting areas for sale. But, again, it would be wrong, in our view, to impose a statutory constraint of the kind which is explicit in the amendment, because then no disposals could take place even for such minor objectives as road improvements or something like that. So very much the same arguments apply as to several of the other amendments. I trust your Lordships will see that the guidelines will, in fact, take care of these forests, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
8.44 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Where an interest in land is held inalienably by the National Trust or the National Trust for Scotland it shall not be disposed of without the consent of the holder of that interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think there is any doubt about what this amendment means. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord McNair, say on an earlier amendment that it was a gentle amendment, and a sensible amendment, I knew, as soon as he said that, that it was doomed. When I suggested that this amendment is one that could not possibly be misunderstood, I wondered whether I should have said that at all.
We have heard talk about letters, we have heard talk about guidelines, and we have heard talk about understandings. But there is no substitute for words in an Act of Parliament. I think I read in a letter somewhere that it is all very well to have vague phrases, or even definite promises, from Ministers who are there in 1981. But parliamentary careers tend to be cut short, Governments tend to change, circumstances change according to Governments, guidelines change and it is easy to get rid of guidelines. It is less easy to get rid of something that is in a statute.
I am very glad that something is being done for the Forest of Dean, but what about the claims of the National Trust for England and the National Trust for Scotland? I have a connection with the National Trust for Scotland. I did not know before, but my noble friend beside me is a member of the council of the National Trust for England. It may be a bit of effrontery for me to be speaking about the National Trust for England in the presence of the chairman, and
188
about the National Trust for Scotland in the presence of the president. They may be wondering why on earth Ross took it upon himself to put down this amendment.
I can tell them that I was waiting and waiting, phoning up and being phoned and receiving letters about questions that had been put to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Minister of State himself. There were acknowledgements, but, as I understand it, no substantial replies. But there is someone who may well be speaking, who will give us a little more information about this. But I saw one letter which, I think, referred to something that had been said or written by Mr. Wiggin, the Minister for Agriculture. I think it was in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. We could not get hold of that letter in Scotland either. But it seemed to give an assurance that, in relation to National Trust land that had been leased, there would be no sale without the consent of the National Trust. As a great concession, the Secretary of State for Scotland said, "And we will do the same for Scotland." But we do not lease land in Scotland; we feu land in Scotland. The National Trust for Scotland have, or have taken over, land that was feud; land that they themselves feud, or that was feud by someone who passed the superior on to them. But the superiority of that land, the interest in that land, remains.
There are two pieces of land that I have particularly in mind, though what I am saying is not limited to pieces of land. In Brodick, the castle and the land surrounding are in the ownership of the Trust, and extending beyond is a piece of land that has been feud to the Forestry Commission. It is the most wonderful sight in the world on the slopes of Goat Fell, looking over the whole bay of Brodick and across to Ayrshire. The mind boggles at the very idea that anybody could think of disposing of that land for any purpose, or would take the power to do it. So we have been concerned that the promise that was given, or that seemed to be given, to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, did not affect us in any way at all.
I think it was only today that a letter was handed to me as I sat there on the Front Bench in reply to correspondence that started way back on 12th May, to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland was prepared to give a pledge in relation to feud land in Scotland. But that is just a letter. It does not tie any future Minister. May I say to the Minister of State that it is not good enough, in relation to the fact that this land is held inalienably; it is a matter of trust for the National Trust for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, may speak about being satisfied with phrases or something written in a letter, but I am speaking for myself and I take this matter very seriously indeed.
It should be remembered that one has to get permission to get the land feud in the first place. To a certain extent, even that is passing over the ownership of the land to somebody else, and one retains one's interest through the continuing land superiority. One can write into the feu charter certain conditions, although there is a limit to those now, because the charter can be broken by the land code. In the past, Governments have tried to ensure that the trust will not alienate the land. In 1970 the then Secretary of State for Scotland, in order to feu that land for the Forestry

189
Commission, had to obtain the permission of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate would not have given his permission had the present proposal been the law of the land at that time. It is as simple and as clear as that.
I see also that a change is going to be made in relation to compulsory purchase. So far as I know, compulsory purchase has never been exercised, but one nearly was. This concerned one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland, Drumbuie, where it was the intention to erect oil rigs. That land was inalienable and a special parliamentary procedure would have been needed in order for the Government to have secured that land. Fortunately, there was a change of Government and with it a change of Secretary of State; in fact I was the new Secretary of State, and so the whole thing went by the board.
This is a very important and sensitive point for the National Trust for Scotland, with its experience of the past. The Government say that they are going to advise the Forestry Commission, because it is the Minister who disposes of the land. The Government do not need to instruct the Forestry Commission because it tells itself. As to leaving the disposal in subsection (2) to the Forestry Commission, this amendment to the Bill really ought to be made. This makes sense from the point of view of both National Trusts and I urge the Government to cut short the debate, to say: "Yes, it is sensible, and this is what we want to do. We will put it in the Bill". I beg to move.
The Earl of Wemyss and March: My Lords, if the Minister is not going to reply immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I should like to back him up by thanking him most sincerely for the eloquent way in which he has stated the case for both National Trusts. The inalienability to which the noble Lord opposite has referred is a vital characteristic of both National Trusts. It is the vital principle on which they both work and on which is founded the confidence of their supporting public. Inalienability means that once the Council of the National Trust has declared land to be inalienable, that land can never thereafter be compulsorily acquired without the consent of Parliament itself. The procedure is in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.
Both trusts can and frequently do dispose of small or unimportant pieces of inalienable land without trouble; for example, in road widening or when tidying up boundaries. An important point of debate has arisen not only in your Lordships' House but also in correspondence about the feuing we practise in Scotland. In Scotland the inalienable interest (and we have recently sought legal opinion to confirm this) definitely does include the superiority interest which we call the dominium directum, which is different from the dominium utile of the actual owner. The superiority interest of land which was or is inalienable remains inalienable. We have feud land in the National Trust for Scotland not only for forestry but also for other purposes. In two important cases and in some less important cases we have feud to the Forestry Commission who, in legal language, thus becomes the feuar. In common parlance it becomes the "owner", which differentiates
190
the situation from that in England and Wales. In more historical language, the commission becomes our "vassals".
Feuing to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Forestry Commission was done not without great thought. It was done in the confidence that the state forestry enterprise was the best instrument for using the land for what appeared to be its best possible use—namely, forestry; and moreover, that it was safe, permanent and trustworthy. We used to use a phrase, "As safe as the Bank of England". It ought to have been rechristened the Bank of Great Britain 250 years ago, but noble Lords will know what I mean.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And a Scot founded it, too.
The Earl of Wemyss and March: Was our confidence misplaced? Our confidence has been badly shaken by the proposed all-embracing powers of disposal which are to be given to Ministers by the few brief words in lines 8 and 9 on page 1 of this Bill. The same applies in respect of the National Trust in England and Wales, where the method of handing over land to the Forestry Commission—customarily and for the same general reasons, and with the same confidence—has been by leasing. Owing to differences in English law, this has been done by a different method and in most cases "ownership", in common speech, remains with the trust. We believe as a matter of principle that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said, only something in the Act itself will be sufficiently good enough to allay our very real fears.
On a much lower level, I am exceedingly grateful for the assurances which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has given in letters to both trusts. He has assured us that land leased or feud by these trusts to the Forestry Commission will not be sold without their consent. There is a different situation in respect of planted land, but that does not worry us very much. However, this is only fine and good in relation to the present Government, who are not here forever. It may therefore only be a stay of execution. It is only partial comfort to a prisoner under sentence that the present holder of the office of Lord High Executioner has promised never to fulfil it.
The two National Trusts are in a unique position with regard to inalienable land. This position has been recognised by Parliament in a general way and in some particular ways. For example, in the Crofters Act in Scotland the general right given to crofters to purchase their crofts is not removed but mitigated if the croft happens to be part of National Trust for Scotland inalienable land. We have heard also about the unique position in respect of the Forest of Dean. At the beginning of this Session I asked the noble Lord the Minister to give us some happiness, and he has given great happiness to 50,000 foresters as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said, by conceding in principle an amendment. May I ask the noble Lord to go somewhat further and give the same joy, which is something he can easily do, to more than 100,000 members of the National Trust for Scotland and to more than 1 million members of the National Trust?
9 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, this is an important amendment. On the question whether land could be

191
used for other purposes, obviously one would have to ask for planning permission, which would almost certainly be refused. On the other hand, there is the possibility of the oil rig syndrome which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, mentioned. It is also a fact that there are certain politicians who put the building of factories, or whatever they may be, well before any amenity value. This has been seen to happen and could happen again. If you sail up the magnificent Norwegian fjords, you find, as you round a corner, a huge factory belching out smoke, the smoke going for 30 miles along the fjord. It would be tragic if that should happen here, but it is very unlikely because any development is subject to planning permission. On the other hand, it is an important amendment and I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I gave my views and those of the National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland—there is a distinction; I cannot speak for the National Trust for Scotland—about this on Amendment No. 1 and was chided, I thought a little harshly, by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for what he referred to as an unfruitful intervention, because the National Trust was going to be discussed later. While we have received these very welcome assurances, which I would point out are an improvement on our present position and therefore we have to be grateful for them, I should have been happier if Amendment No. 1 had been acceptable to the Government, because it would have brought under parliamentary scrutiny the directions about which I received these satisfactory assurances.
I very much dislike not being able to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because his heart and mine are in exactly the same place. However, speaking personally, I do not think it is reasonable to bar the Forestry Commissioners from disposing of land not wanted for forestry for value. The assurance we have been given by the Minister is that if the commissioners wish to dispose of unplanted land they will give the National Trust the chance to buy back the lease. We are talking about leases, not about freehold land. There is no question of the disposal of freehold land. We are talking about land which has been leased to the Forestry Commission. Where it has been planted, it will not be allowed to be disposed of, if these assurances are honoured. Where it has been unplanted, it can be disposed of but we shall get the chance of buying it and we shall be given six months within which to do so, which would give us a chance to raise the money.
To me, this is fair and reasonable and an improvement on the present position. We do not necessarily get that first refusal now, so I do not feel so dissatisfied as does the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. Because I think that it would be an unreasonable limitation on the Forestry Commission, I find the wording of this amendment hard to go along with and I hope it is not pressed. It may be that at Third Reading our interest could be protected even more satisfactorily than it is by the Minister's assurances. However, I do not feel that this amendment does that, and I should have great difficulty—with reluctance because I appreciate that the sense of it is in the
192
direction of the National Trust, which I wish to protect—in going along with it.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, would it not also be true to say from the point of view of the National Trust for England and Wales that, if they did not like the would-be purchaser of the Forestry Commission lease, they could refuse it to him? How it would work in Scotland is very different. The feu question is probably outside the terms of the Bill. However, in England and in Wales, so far as the National Trust and any private person are concerned they would be secure, provided that forestry was going to be carried on by the purchaser. Would that be true?
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I do not think that is quite right. Perhaps the Minister would like to speak to this himself, but his assurance was that planted land leased by the National Trust to the Forestry Commission would not be assigned without the agreement of the National Trust. I think the present situation is that it could be leased without the agreement of the National Trust.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, before I go into the merits, or the lack of them, of this amendment, I must say on behalf of the Government that, if the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss and March, has been shown any discourtesy or slowness on the part of anybody in answering his letters, I take full responsibility for that and apologise to him. One of the difficulties was that we were all waiting to see what happened in Committee to the amendment which Lord Taylor of Gryfe tabled but was unfortunately not here to move. I do not suppose the fact that the Bill moved in its passage from the other place to this House from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Scottish Office has helped communications all that much. But I am bound to say that I tried very hard to contact the noble Earl, even considering at one moment approaching him at his dentist. Perhaps he will be relieved that I desisted.
May I set out the situation as it is at the moment? There has been a good deal of correspondence between different Ministers and the two National Trusts over the question of land held inalienably by them. I had hoped that by correspondence we had come to a satisfactory arrangement. Indeed, I received a letter from Mr. Sterling, the Deputy Director-General of the National Trust for England, if I may shorten it, saying that in effect they thought that the arrangements were satisfactory. What the agreement in essence means is that in the case of plantations of land originally leased from the National Trust—I am talking about the National Trust for England—and still owned by them, the lease will not be assigned without their consent. The trust has accepted that the commission should be free to dispose of open land—that is, land which because of its character is unsuitable for planting trees—if it wishes, as indeed it can readily do under existing power. But the trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson has said, will be given six months' notice of any such sales, and first refusal.
So far as Scotland is concerned, acquisition has been by feu charter, which is of course a quite different form of land tenure from a lease. However, what we have agreed to extend are similar arrangements to areas feued from the National Trust for Scotland, and the effect of this is that, given the differences in the

193
forms of land tenure, the position in each country will be the same.
I anticipate that this will be acceptable to my noble friend Lord Wemyss, except that he says that a future Government could upset these arrangements—and indeed of course they could and any future Government with a majority in the House of Commons could upset any future arrangements. But if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, of course nobody could possibly envisage any Government—and he said so himself—selling off land round Brodick and, if anybody —and here I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Gisborough—were to try to sell off land for the purposes of putting up oil rigs or any other excrescence, then of course the normal planning arrangements would apply and I have no doubt that such activities would be stopped or indeed would never be started.
Therefore, I hope and think that the agreement to which we have come with the two National Trusts is one which is fair and equitable and which looks after the interests which they in their turn look after so faithfully—interests that are very close to all our hearts.
In those circumstances, therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will see fit to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps I may just say to him finally that his amendment in fact would introduce restrictions which do not already exist. In other words, at the moment surplus non-forestry land or houses can be disposed of under existing powers without consent. However, that is by the way. If his amendment was written into the Bill, it would make the position, even in relation to these forms of property, more onerous than it is at the moment.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Earl enlighten me, please? If this proposal which he has agreed by correspondence only is so admirable and so equitable and so practical and all the other pleasant adjectives one can think of, why is it not possible for it to be included in the legislation, not necessarily of course in the forms that are now before the House?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think exactly the same considerations apply as have applied to our debates all along. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has been in her place for some number of hours now—
Baroness White: My Lords, at least I come with a fresh mind.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, a fresh mind and, I will not say an untutored mind, for that would be very rude, but an uninformed mind in the context of this debate.
I do not think that I can help the House further. I had thought that by working extremely hard, as we all have done, we had got, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has acknowledged, a measure of agreement.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, on past occasions I have called the Minister of State a master of the infelicitous phrase and I am perfectly sure that my noble friend Lady White will appreciate from her own present experience that maybe I have had some justification for saying that to him. Now he tells us that this would be too restrictive, and indeed so did the noble Lord,
194
Lord Gibson. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, read the amendment? It does not stop the trusts doing anything. What it says is,
"without the consent of the holder of that interest".
In other words, before they do it, they have to go and see the National Trust for Scotland or the National Trust for England. Now that is a very onerous restriction, is it not? If it is sensible, they will be given the consent.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. My difficulty with this amendment is that I cannot understand what the word "it" means in the second line. The amendment reads:
"Where an interest in land is held inalienably by the National Trust or the National Trust for Scotland it shall not be disposed of without the consent of the holder of that interest".
Does that refer to the inalienable freehold interest of the National Trust or to the leasehold interest held by the Forestry Commission? That alone is not clear.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the provision refers to the land, the last noun before the word "it"—the land shall not be disposed of. I used to teach English, but it may well be that the fact that I did so in Scotland—
Lord Gibson: It could mean either.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It could mean all sorts of things. The Minister is an English lawyer and he had no difficulty about it, but if we want to nit pick we shall always be able to find something like that.
May I say this regarding oil rigs and the contention that nobody would ever dream of certain action. The noble Earl's memory is very short. There was a Minister of Energy who was able to trample all over tile Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Earl spoke about the ordinary planning procedures. The ordinary planning procedures do not apply, and cannot apply, when one is dealing with compulsory purchase of inalienable land. For the planning procedure to be gone through properly, special parliamentary procedure has to be followed in order to enable that land to be taken.
It was the noble Earl's right honourable friend who called it in, in 1973, I think it was. The inquiry was held. The Secretary of State for Scotland was the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; the Minister of Energy, who was anxious to get on with the oil rigs to meet a particular date, was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. So it is from the point of view of experience of the Government's past in relation to inalienable land that we are concerned about this. I am sure it is the one thing that satisfied people about the later amendment that the noble Earl himself is going to move. I am sure this may have been in the mind of Lord Sandford in respect of an amendment he has down. All these things are related to experience of the trust.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, as chairman of the trust, is going to be as easily satisfied as that, who am I to do it? If that was all there was concern about it would be easy to withdraw the amendment and let the English stew in their own satisfactory juice. But we are not so easily satisfied in Scotland. It was in

195
Scotland that we had the experience in relation to the land at Drumbuie, the inalienable land. It is in Scotland we are concerned about Brodick and the rest. If the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, feels it would be wrong to divide the House, I am prepared to divide the House, but if he thinks it is not worth while I would think it is not worth while, because the hordes will come in who have not heard even a word of what the argument is about and we shall be duly defeated by about 30 votes. That is not worth while either.
I want to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and to the Minister. Why have I put the amendment down at all? I put down the amendment because I was waiting; I had heard that the National Trust was waiting for word from the Government, that Lord Gibson was going to put down some amendment or other along the lines of that of Lord Taylor of Gryfe—who is in the West Indies, and is very helpful to us there, I am sure. I have responsibilities, too, to myself and my own beliefs.
It was last Tuesday that we had the Committee stage. It took the Government some time to pass things backwards and forwards in reply to letters. What about the ordinary Member of the House who has a responsibility to write amendments. A Member for Scotland usually goes back to Scotland on Thursday night. So I had to get my amendments down by the 4th. I phoned up; I tried to find out what the National Trust were doing. They were hung up, they were waiting for ministerial meetings that were promised although the National Trust for Scotland were not even invited to that meeting. We got a reply to letters. I think it was posted on 5th June; it was dated then. I do not know when it was received. If I had waited until these letters had been received there would have been no amendment down at all. That is why the amendment was put down.
The reply, to my mind, is not satisfactory. However, we have heard from both of the National Trusts and if they are prepared to accept it, then I am prepared to accept it. But, quite frankly, from a Scottish point of view it is absolutely not good enough and I personally would be prepared to divide the House on the subject. It cannot possibly do the National Trust for England and Wales any harm and it is no onerous thing to ask the Government to allow the Trust to give their consent. It is not a lot of work. All they have to do is phone up and get the answer. It is as simple as that. If it were something really important you would want to be consulted about it and you would want possibly to withhold your consent. But if you are only relying on the word of a Minister in a letter, not even in guidelines in the Library, then all that I can say is that the English are very easily satisfied.
The Earl of Wemyss and March: My Lords, by leave I should like to make a few remarks about the implications which have been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I certainly have no accusation against the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for discourtesy or anything like that. Indeed, if he tried to get me at the dentist yesterday afternoon I would not have been in a position to say anything—so it is just as well that he did not do so. However, honestly, it has been a
196
very long time since the Committee stage on, I think it was, 11th May. It was only yesterday, Monday morning, that I received the noble Earl's first letter and it was only today in this building that I received his second letter, although I am aware that the National Trust received a letter at an earlier date than that.
Another small point is that we, in the person of one of our deputy directors, did have a conference at the Forestry Commission headquarters in Edinburgh last Thursday. Therefore, we are not saying that the noble Earl or those who help him are in any way guilty of discourtesy—only perhaps a little slowness. I should like further to make clear that, although I think, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that inalienability is extremely important, it is in the context of the present moment only a matter of principle. I do not think that there is much practical substance in the point at the moment. We have the assurances in the Government letter which cover all that matters. We can hope that some future Government will perhaps, given time, put those assurances in a more solid form.
However, I cannot agree that this inalienability is a sufficiently light thing to be dealt with by letters from Ministers, transitory Ministers, of Her Majesty's present Government, however much we respect them, however much we like them and respect their integrity. It is not good enough. If the noble Lord opposite thinks that the House should divide, I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, personally I do not think that there would be any point in dividing the House, but I am more convinced than ever that we are not legislating in the proper way.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford: we are not legislating in the proper way. I am sure that Members who have just come into the House, who have not been here during our discussions because they have been detained elsewhere, will be mystified about the letters. This is not how we should legislate. We have heard about the letters. How many people have seen them? I have not even had time to read properly the last one which I received, because I was involved in a piece of legislation which came before us for consideration prior to this legislation.
No, I would not be true or fair to myself in respect of the importance which I place upon this matter if I did not press the amendment. I have spent so much time trying to find out what people were doing and finding out that they were being held up because they were waiting on this and that, that I put down this amendment. It is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment. It is what the Government should be putting into the Bill. If they are not satisfied with the actual wording of the amendment, they can do as they did in relation to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and ask me to withdraw this amendment, giving the assurance that they will find suitable words. If the noble Earl gives me that promise, I shall not proceed to a Division.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, by leave, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has referred to me, may I make one point? It is just that we are not talking about inalien

197
ability; we are talking about leases. I want it to be quite clear that I am as keen on the concept of inalienability as anyone. I regard it as fundamental and vital to the Trust that there is nothing inalienable about a lease.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Loudoun, C.

Bathurst, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Bishopston, L.

Melchett, L.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Collison, L.

Rochester, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sandford, L.

Fulton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Galpern, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Hooson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Kinross, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Wemyss, E.

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

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Gridley, L.

Abinger, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hatherton, L.

Avon, E.

Hives, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kintore, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Marley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Middleton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Vaux of Harrowden,

Gray, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
9.33 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Compulsory purchase of land
. In section 40 of the Forestry Act 1967, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
"(4) The power of compulsory purchase under this Act shall not be exercisable in relation to land held inalienably by the National Trust or by the National Trust for Scotland.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment fulfils the undertaking I gave in Committee to review the powers in Section 40(4) of the Forestry Act 1967, which permits the compulsory purchase for forestry purposes of land held inalienably by the National Trust. We accept that we should remove both the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland from the theoretical threat of compulsory purchase under the Act but, as I indicated to your Lordships when we discussed the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Sandford, a simple repeal of subsection (4) is not enough. It is therefore necessary to make specific provision for the exclusion of land held by the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland from the provisions of Section 40, and this is the purpose of the new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, was good enough to tell me that he has unfortunately had to leave for Birmingham but that otherwise he would have welcomed the amendment.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we welcome the amendment in that the present provision in the 1967 Act says that land belonging to the National Trust may be compulsorily purchased notwithstanding that it is held inalienably by the trust. Now, of course, the Minister is giving protection to the trust so that its land will not be compulsorily purchased. However, may I ask him to say how this makes for any consistency when he is allowing National Trust land leased to the Forestry Commission, or at least the unplanted part of it, to be disposed of? It seems that in one case he is giving some protection—and is saying, "What a good boy I am for so doing"—yet he will not protect the land which can be disposed of by the Minister "as he thinks fit".
The Earl of Mansfield: This is sensible, my Lords. The clause removes from Section 40 of the Forestry Act 1967 the power compulsorily to purchase land held inalienably by the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland. What we have done in respect of the last amendment, which was pressed to a Division, was not to write into the Bill a badly drafted and technically inadequate amendment which would not have done what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson—and, dare I say it, the noble Earl, Lord Wymess and March?—would have wanted. This is, as I understand it, precisely what the National Trust wants, and therefore there is that distinction.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the National Trust certainly want it, and it is by no means academic. How many times has this compulsory purchase power been used?
The Earl of Wemyss and March: Never.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am obliged for that information, my Lords; it has never been used, which means they are removing a power which has never been used. Nevertheless, its use was once threatened and that was by the noble Lord's own Government. That happened in 1973 in relation to something that occurred in the north of Scotland. Thus it is not academic, and probably the National Trust would not have asked for it but for the behaviour of the then Tory Government in 1973 when they threatened compulsorily to purchase a piece of land that was held inalienably.
The Earl of Wemyss and March: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, the compulsory purchase power which now exists refers only to land for the Forestry Commission, and then only to England and Wales; therefore, both the compulsory purchase for another purpose of land in Scotland was nothing to do with the provision which is now in effect being repealed.
While on my feet, I would on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gibson, who has had to leave, say, "Thank you very much" to the noble Earl for the most notable concession among the very few concessions he has made during the whole passage of the Bill. Frankly, we in Scotland did not ask for this; we do not want it and do not believe we need it. But we have no objection whatever to being lumped with our big sister and told that land cannot be compulsorily purchased from us for the purposes of the Forestry Act. It never could, and we believe that under the Parliamentary safeguards, to which I have already referred, it could not be now, even without the amendment. Nevertheless, we say, "Thank you" for it.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I, as the noble Lord who moved an amendment in this connection in Committee, thank my noble friend for bringing the amendment forward and say that if it is accepted I shall not need to move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
9.40 p.m.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Right to Repurchase
Where any land which has been disposed of under section 1 of this Act is offered for sale the Forestry Commission shall have the prior right of purchase.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment. It seems that throughout this evening and through the Committee stage there have been very few concessions indeed from the Government. The amendment would provide a new clause which would state that,
"Where any land which has been disposed of under section 1 of this Act is offered for sale the Forestry Commission shall have the prior right of purchase".
This is aimed at looking after the interests of those authorities which have let land to the Forestry Commission—land which is held in trust by them and is transferred to the Forestry Commission. I should have thought it very reasonable that those whose land was being disposed of should have the protection which they thought they had when they leased the land to the commission in the first place. I should also have thought it very reasonable that when land is offered for sale the Forestry Commission should have the prior right of purchase.
If land has been sold by the Forestry Commission—land which is unplanted, but inalienably held in trust by the National Trust, or the National Trust for Scotland, or perhaps by the Church Commissioners, or the Crown Estate Commissioners—and the Forestry Commission feels that the best interests of the land use are not being safeguarded, then the Forestry
200
Commission ought to have the prior right of purchase in those cases.
It seems that there is no protection whatsoever. Some of the bodies that I have mentioned, such as the Church Commissioners, the National Trust, and the Crown Estates Commissioners are all acting under Acts of Parliament. They have been given very specific terms of their trusteeship, and I do not know what they would have thought some time ago when leases were granted to the Forestry Commission if they had known that this Bill was coming along. They might have hesitated to arrange leases with the Forestry Commission because they could not have been assured that the terms of their trusteeship would be complied with.
So if the Forestry Commission, or rather the Minister, sells land, he can ignore the advise of the Forestry Commission, which might have some hesitation about letting land go when it has been held in trust by it on behalf of other public bodies. The Minister can override the Forestry Commission, and so far, with the exception of the Forest of Dean, no provision relating to control has been accepted by the Minister—or only very little in respect of the National Trust. He has not accepted any provision for accountability, for coming back to either House of Parliament with statutory instruments to explain, or to justify, why he wants to dispose of land. There is no accountability at all to Parliament. There is no need for the Minister to come back and say that he wants to sell National Trust unplanted land for speculative purposes, development, or other uses other than forestry. This might involve land on lease from other public bodies. There is no accountability at all in that way.
Of course, as my noble friend has said, it can be left to the planning committees of the local authorities to safeguard these great national assets, but surely that is not good enough. I believe that there is justification for hoping that the Minister will agree to the amendment which provides that when land is offered for sale the Forestry Commission shall have the prior right of purchase. This would give the Forestry Commission the chance to redeem itself if it sees that land that it has sold is not being used in the way which it considers appropriate in the national interest. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern in this matter, and if I thought that the dangers were real I should feel differently about his amendment than in fact I do feel about it. A right of pre-emption of the type which the noble Lord suggests is, I think, quite unnecessary. If properties which have been sold under the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill are subsequently offered for resale, it is reasonable to assume that they will be advertised on the open market.
The commission keeps in touch with the market for this sort of property, and if for its own purposes it wanted to acquire the land—in other words, if it wanted to make a bid—then it could do so in exactly the same was as any other potential purchaser, because what the noble Lord is not seeking in his amendment is to give it any particular rights so far as the purchase price is concerned. I believe, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, that once the commission has disposed

201
of its interest there is no reason why it should have any special claim on the land.
I think that that really disposes of the amendment, but there are two further considerations. If the noble Lord's concern is that the land would be sold by the Forestry Commission and thereafter the trees felled, and that after that stage the land might be devoted to some different purpose, then, as I say, there are two safeguards. First, there is the felling licence procedure, which I have already set out to your Lordships and which I think is a real safeguard; and, of course, if uses are to be made of the land other than growing trees, the ordinary rules of planning will apply.
The second matter which I think makes one hesitate before accepting an amendment of this kind—in fact, more than hesitate; it is something which would in fact stop one accepting such an amendment—is that, certainly in England and Wales, once the property has been resold once, there is really no way of keeping track of it to a subsequent purchaser. In other words, if the first customer sold the land and the Forestry Commission did not avail itself of its right to repurchase, there would then be no binding obligation on any subsequent owners of the land, if they wanted to sell, in turn to offer it to the Forestry Commission. For all these reasons, although, as I say, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, I believe that this new clause is quite unnecessary, and I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, if I may refer to the letter sent to the National Trust, a lot of discussion has gone on about it but, of course, the country does not know what we are talking about because we have not got the terms of the letter on record. The letter of 29th May to the National Trust regarding the assignment of leases from the National Trust goes on to refer to Mr. Wiggin's letter of 14th April, and says that that,
"gave the basis on which we consider it would be right for the Commission to operate in relation to National Trust properties. During the Committee stage I referred"—
this is a letter from the Minister—
202
"to guidelines which we shall be sending to the Chairman of the Forestry Commission setting out the considerations which he and his colleagues should have regard to in selecting areas for sale. These include 'the undertaking given by the forestry Ministers that in the case of plantations on land originally leased from the National Trust and still owned by them, the lease will not be assigned without the Trust's consent'. The guidelines go on to say that similar arrangements will apply to properties leased from the National Trust for Scotland, although of course acquisition by feu charter is the more usual course north of the Border".
Then, on the aspect of open land, the letter goes on to say:
"We deliberately excluded open land, because such land is usually surplus to the Commission's forestry needs unless it is awaiting planting. There is no statutory bar to the disposal of surplus property under existing provisions, so the Bill is not a new factor in that sense. That is not to say that such areas will be an automatic target for disposal, but to place an embargo on disposal would mean that the Commission would have to retain these areas permanently whether they wanted to or not, and I think that would be an unreasonable imposition. However, if and when such land does become available for disposal the Trust would of course be given first refusal".
If that can apply to the trust, even if only in a letter—and, of course, my noble friends feel that it is such an important pledge that it should be in the Bill in writing, although my reading has put it on record now—then surely the same kind of promise or first refusal can also be applied to other land which the Forestry Commission wishes to sell, or which it sells and which is again put on the market. In that way, the responsibilities of trustees whose land was leased to the Forestry Commission in the confident expectation that the commission would be able to ensure its future use in terms with its obligations, would be assured.
Obviously, I cannot expect the Minister to agree to the amendment at this stage but in the light of his reply, which I thought was as encouraging as anything we have heard tonight, except for the Forest of Dean, I should like the Government to look at this again and on Third Reading to come some way, if they can, towards the kind of protection we want in the safeguarding of these important national assets. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury direct") and insert ("direct, with the approval of the Treasury and having regard for the need to support the expansion and development of the national forestry effort and to maintain the viability of the forestry enterprise administered by the Commissioners").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I must almost apologise at this time of night for bringing your Lordships' attention back to more purely forestry matters. We have been talking for a long time about other matters ancillary to our subject. The object of this amendment is to try to direct the proceeds of any sales of this land—and that is what the Bill is about—into the interests of the national forestry effort. My concern is based on these factors. First, I believe that this Bill is not necessarily a Treasury measure, as such. I think it may be caused by the attitudes of Treasury who have always been reluctant to back up the national forestry effort with subventions to the Forestry Commission and, through the Forestry Commission, to the private sector. We all remember that now-discredited document of (what was it?) nine years ago, the cost benefit study of the Treasury.
The Treasury are never really confident in putting investment now into such a long-term thing as forestry which can yield such results over a long period of decades. That being so, and in view of their reluctance, I can see great merit in the Bill. I have been very critical of the Bill in certain places and at certain stages in this House and elsewhere, but I can see great merit in it if the object were to raise funds from within the forestry industry itself to continue to generate an expansion of the national forestry effort.
I have been worried, as have other noble Lords, over what are called the open-ended terms of Clause 1 of the Bill, where it says that the Minister may sell off for any purpose bits of the Forestry Commission. We have had reassuring statements from my noble friend on the Front Bench and from Ministers in another place, that they did not intend to go in for their sales in any degree that would be drastic or harmful to the Forestry Commission. Personally, I should be much more reassured if it were spelt out in the Bill that the reason behind the selling off of bits of the Forestry Commission was to provide support for the health and expansion of the future of forestry.
We spent a great deal of time this afternoon and this evening talking about things ancillary to the main subject, if I may make bold to suggest so. This point is the nub of the question which concerns people who are interested in forestry and concerned about forestry, as I have confessed to your Lordships to be on a number of occasions. That is what generates my concern: for any purpose, there is no limit on it. It has to go into the Consolidated Fund and it can come out of the Consolidated Fund again. What my amendment seeks as best I can devise amidst the constraints and pitfalls of proper parliamentary drafting, is to get some assurance that until the national forest is large enough in the view of experts—and, as you know, there have been suggestions in various reports that we ought to go on expanding it well into the next century—forestry
204
will be the beneficiaries of the proceeds of sales of parts of the Forestry Commission. That is a splendid idea, because the Treasury do not want to "cough it up" out of the national budget and a self-generating activity like this seems to commend itself. That is one part of the hoped-for results of my amendment.
The second point is keeping the forest enterprise which is the Forestry Commission's own enterprise—as opposed to their national forestry authority activities, research and development, and so on—undamaged as a component of importance in the partnership of effort, each with its own merits and constraints between the private and public sectors in the national forestry effort.
I am aware and grateful for the fact that the amendment which follows mine is to be moved by my noble friend the Minister. That goes a long way to try to reassure us that that is the way that things will work out. It is widely phrased. One might even drive a horse and cart through it; it depends on what future Ministers' regard for forestry is. I want to say how grateful I am to the Minister because I know very well that it has been as a result of a great deal of deliberations between himself and his colleagues in Government that this very important move towards what we have been asking for is being proposed by the Minister.
I have referred to aid to the national forest expansion and also to keeping the forest enterprise viable. My noble friend's amendment does not seem to deal with that explicitly. Although I am sad that my noble friend could not have gone further in the way that I am suggesting, I think that it is only fair that I should move this amendment for the purpose of discussion but leave it to my noble friend to deal with this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should very much like to back Lord Dulverton's own amendment on this. I think he said you can drive a horse and cart through the next amendment, and that is true. He also said that Ministers had laboured long before they produced it. I think that the labour may have had as much regard to making it inoccuous as it had to getting the approval of the forestry industry. I must say that when you say,
"having regard to the national interest in maintaining",
that is where the horse, cart and the buggy can go through; whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, says:
"… having regard for the need to support the expansion and development of the national forestry effort …".
That is a need which has been recognised in every quarter of this country and certainly in every quarter of this House. The fears that have been expressed by so many people on so many sides of this House I think are really highlighted by the response of the Government to the noble Lord's amendment in Committee. I much prefer Amendment No. 17. It does mean something, and also it leaves some leeway for the Government. I had hoped that, in the light of the poverty of the one following, the noble Lord would not withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, noble Lords will recollect that during the Committee stage I undertook to consider an amendment which was moved and withdrawn. I think my words were that I undertook to,
"consult and talk with certain noble Lords to see if we could write something into the Bill which would not conflict with the principles of the Bill and yet which would prove reassuring and meaningful to persons such as my noble friend Lord Dulverton, who genuinely feel worried".
Those consultations have gone on, as I have no doubt my noble friend will agree, and there is much in his amendment with which I can myself agree. For instance, I agree with its reference to the need for support for the expansion and development of the national forestry effort. Indeed, the expansion of forestry is a feature of the policy underlying the provision of this Bill. I also agree that it is important to maintain the viability of the Forestry Commission's commercial activities; in other words, its forestry enterprise. As my noble friend may be aware, this expression, although well understood, is nowhere defined in any legislation.
But the real difficulty of my noble friend's amendment is that it seeks to amend Clause 2 of the Bill and, having considered the matter very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that his amendment seeks to deal with this matter on too narrow a front. Clause 2 deals only with the Forestry Fund, and that is not the point of the Bill at which I think we should seek to give effect to his ideas regarding the maintenance of the viability of the forestry enterprise.
When I introduced this Bill on Second Reading I outlined the purpose of Clause 2 and I explained that the Forestry Commission is presently funded through the grant-in-aid on a net basis; that is to say, the grant-in-aid represents the difference between the commission's income and expenditure. All sums received by the commissioners, including capital sums from the sale of assets, are paid into the Forestry Fund. However, under existing arrangements sums which are credited to the Forestry Fund cannot be withdrawn and paid to the Exchequer even if the fund runs into surplus. We propose to vary these arrangements so as to insulate the commission's expenditure and cash limits from fluctuations in the disposal of land and plantations and the sale of surplus property, by transferring the proceeds from such disposals to the Consolidated Fund by what are called extra receipts. Notes on Supply Estimates and the Public Expenditure Survey will show the effect of those receipts on the commission's net call on Exchequer funds.
While it is our intention that the proceeds of the sale of land will be transferred into the Consolidated Fund, we will take the level of disposals into account in considering proposals by the commissioners for expenditure on these various functions, including their forestry enterprise. The proceeds from disposal of forestry land will influence the level of the commission forestry activities, in the sense that a successful programme of disposals would enable proposals for additional planting by the commissioners to be entertained. It does not follow that Clause 2 is the appropriate place for the kind of amendment that my noble friend has in mind.
206
I now turn to the question of "the expansion and development of the national forestry effort", to which the amendment also refers. I again suggest to my noble friend that it would be inappropriate to try to cover that aspect in the clause in the Bill dealing with the transfer of moneys from the Forestry Fund to the Consolidated Fund. Such expansion and development, as I have said, is an objective on which my noble friend and I agree. The Government's policy declared is for an expansion of forestry. This was indicated in the forestry policy Statement which I made in your Lordships' House on 10th December last year. The achievement of this objective involves more than the power to transfer monies from the Forestry Fund, as proposed in Clause 2. In fact, it requires to be related to the exercise of all the functions of Ministers and the commissioners under the 1967 Act. I trust that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree that Clause 2 of the Bill is not really the appropriate point to cover these aspects of the development of national forestry policy. I hope that in the light of what is provided in the new clause which I have drafted, he will take comfort and will agree that this is the right amendment and the right place in which to put it.
I turn to the new clause. It is, of course, safe to say that anything which the Government propose the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will immediately oppose. But I hope that I can show him that, in fact, this is the right place to put this kind of clause and not in Clause 2. The Government have taken very careful note of what was said in your Lordships' House and in another place during the passage of this Bill. At various times my right honourable and honourable friends and I have given a number of assurances about the Government's intentions about the operation of the powers being sought in the Bill. The purpose of this new clause is to give statutory backing to those assurances and to our commitment to a long-term forestry policy of a positive nature and of the kind envisaged in the Statement which I made to your Lordships' House on 10th December last.
So our approach differs from my noble friend's, in that we have decided to so this in the form of a new clause governing the whole spectrum of forestry Ministers' statutory functions. This underlines the fact that the exercise of all those functions will be directed towards our primary policy objective, which is to maintain and expand Britain's forestry resources. Ministers have, of course, a number of functions under the Act, but perhaps the most relevant from the point of view of the Bill are those relating to the purchase and sale of land, and, even more importantly in the context of the expansion of forestry, Ministers' powers of direction over the manner in which the Forestry Commissioners exercise their functions and powers. May I remind the House that the commissioners are charged under Section 1 of the 1967 Act,
"with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation and the production and supply of timber and other forest products in Great Britain".
We have given continual assurances that the Bill is in no way designed to impair or diminish the responsibilities of the commissioners, and this new clause reinforces those assurances by making it clear that in

207
all their acts Ministers, too, shall have regard to the basic philosophy underlying the commissioners' duties.
There has never been any question that the Bill should be used by this Government to weaken the status or the effectiveness, and still less, the viability, of the commission. On the contrary, we have made it plain that we envisage a greater participation by private forestry in the national forestry effort, but that we intend at the same time to maintain the successful partnership between the private sector and the commission, for which we see a continuing role both as the forestry authority and as the forestry enterprise. I know that some critics have dubbed this a Treasury Bill and nothing that I can say will deflect the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock or Lord Bishopston, from that view. They hold the mistaken view that this Bill is concerned exclusively with raising funds for the Exchequer without any reference to the interests of forestry. I believe their view to be based on a misunderstanding of the intentions behind the provisions in Clause 2, but I have frequently tried to explain that the arrangement will in fact ensure that the commission's programme, and its cash limits, are separated from and not adversely affected by fluctuations in what may well be an unpredictable market. This would allow the commission's programme to be sustained, thus contributing to the maintenance and expansion of the overall forestry resource.
I should also like to repeat that so far as disposals are concerned the aim is progressively to reduce the commission's net call on Exchequer funds for its forestry enterprise activities. This will be done in accordance with the principles and objectives of the guidelines to which I have already referred. These guidelines will not only set limits to the extent of the disposals, thereby protecting the viability of the forestry enterprise and its contribution to the national forestry effort, but will also safeguard the many important environmental, social and industrial interests that have to be taken into account on changes of ownership. Any carry forward of disposals receipts in excess of the programme for the purposes of further forestry enterprise activities would be incompatible with public expenditure procedures. It is proposed that the disposals and planting programmes should be reviewed at each Public Expenditure Survey to assess past performance against programmes and future prospects. If the review shows—and I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this—that the disposals programme is progressing satisfactorily, it will be open to the forestry Minister to propose additional bids for forestry enterprise programmes.
I have taken a little time to say all this because, like my noble friend Lord Dulverton, I regard this matter as being of supreme importance. I hope that, from what I have said, your Lordships will see that the Government's intention behind this Bill is to ensure the continued health and growth of the forestry industry. This is what we said in our first statement last September, and I regard this new clause as rounding off that aim, by giving tangible statutory expression to the assurance and professions of intent we have made during the passage of the Bill over the past few weeks.
208
I believe this new clause gives clarity and perspective to those intentions. Moreover, by being written into the 1967 Act, it will do that in the right place.
Lord Dulverton: In view of the assurances which my noble friend has just given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.14 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("General duty of Ministers
. After section 8 of the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
"General duty of Ministers.
8A. In performing their functions under this Act the Ministers shall have regard to the national interest in maintaining and expanding the forestry resources of Great Britain.".").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this, and I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wondered what new clause was being talked about when the noble Earl spoke to Amendment No. 17, and, when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, withdraw the new clause, I was even more mystified. Now we have received an adequate explanation. It is a 1967 Forestry Act which we are amending. The Forestry Act 1967 has antecedents which go way back to 1920. We are now in 1981, and in the proposed new clause, 8A, we see:
"In performing their functions under this Act the Ministers shall have regard to the national interest in maintaining and expanding the forestry resources of Great Britain".
What does all that mean? It is just words. We have been told that there is an identity between the Forestry Commissioners and the Minister. The Minister is the head of a department. The first section of the 1967 Act lays down the general duties of the commissioners. The commission is the Minister. It is appointed by the Minister to do as he tells it. It is part of his department. The commissioners would never dream of there being any difference between them. And what does the Act say: it says in subsection (2) that the commissioners have the general duty
"of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation and the production and supply of timber",
and so on.
"The commissioners' general duty includes that of promoting the establishment and maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees".
That is subsection (3) of Section 1 of the 1967 Act. That is where it should be—in the first clause. Then, after eight clauses we are going to be given in 1981 the general duties of the Minister. What is this going to add to anything? It shows the measure of discontent created by the Bill that the Minister has put this in now as a reassurance for some people.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, is now reassured and that he will be able to sleep at night, because the only thing that Ministers are thinking of are these new general duties, a restatement of general duties which always were there. I do not think that

209
this adds anything at all to the Bill either in relation to the Forestry Commission or to anybody else. It only shows the measure of despair at the mess which the Government have got themselves into, that in 1981 they have to spell out the general duty of Ministers which everybody thought they knew decades ago. I would not dream of opposing it. This is a lovely piece of pious declamation. When it goes to another place I hope they will have a good laugh about it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I hope your Lordships' House will bear with me for just a moment. I want to explain why I have risen at this time of night to comment on this clause. I have been very closely involved with men who, almost since the creation of the commission, have devoted their lives to building the forests of Great Britain. They have no particular desire to own any one tree for themselves. They have devoted their lives, many of them for as many as 25 or 30 years, to building up our forests, not to building up any particular firm, foreign or British, or a mixture of both. They have devoted their lives to building up the forests of Great Britain, and there is a Ministry responsible for the administration, once again, not of any particular firm or multinational.
I hope your Lordships' House will not believe that it is offensive to look after, nurture and culture the forests of Great Britain in the interests of the British people. Is that a heinous and disgraceful thing to do? I believe that their views have got to be taken into consideration. The only reason, even at this late hour, why I believe their voices should be heard by the Minister who might be responsible is because he could charge them, the foresters of Great Britain, with being pro-British.
I understand that the new clause outlines to a degree precisely and succinctly the views of these men who have devoted their lives to the Forestry Commission of Great Britain. As I have said, they do this not for any particular multinational, not for any destructive purpose, not for any greedy view, not for the desire to own one leaf for themselves, but to work and to devote their lives to the Forestry Commission of Great Britain. I hope that if there is going to be a reply to this new clause the Minister who is likely to be responsible will say quite clearly whether or not this Government are opposed to the foresters of Great Britain because they happen to believe that the trees of this island belong to the British people. That is what your Lordships' House might be challenged to do—to decide whether you are to say to these foresters, "You have no right to be interested in the forests of Great Britain on behalf of the British people. This Government, duly elected, have decided that they are going to flog them—to sell them—for a variety of reasons". I find that highly distasteful.
I should like to conclude with this: if we really believe that we are going to appeal to people in the difficult times in which we live, there are all sorts of things said about trade unions and trade unionists, but most of the foresters—indeed probably all of them—belong to the Civil Service Union. They have been attending your Lordships' House to listen to these debates, not for a 6 per cent. increase in their salary, not arguing that they have been offered 6 per cent. on their salary and they want 10 per cent. They are
210
not asking for 1 per cent. on their salaries; their claim is—and I ask your Lordships' House to note this—that, as Welshmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen and Englishmen, they believe that the intent of this Bill is to sell part of the birthright of this island to entrepreneurs, not all of them British. That is the challenge to the conscience of every noble Lord in this House tonight and of those who may read what I have to say later on. Therefore I ask that, before we proceed much further, those who have responsibility on the Bench opposite should convey these views to the Minister responsible. Now I challenge him, even at this late stage—it is no good the noble Lord grimacing; I know it is very difficult when one talks about the British people; it irritates and annoys people as it is annoying the noble Lord at the moment, but I hope that in your Lordships' House it will never become an offensive thing to be British.
This is a very serious challenge and therefore I say to the Front Bench opposite that I believe that these men—the older men who have devoted their lives, the young men who are coming along—have only one desire. They have pride in their job, pride in the work which they do on behalf of this nation, and perhaps even at this late hour we should take full cognisance of the views that they hold and of their belief that they can carry on in the way they have been doing and can prove beyond a scintilla of doubt their massive contribution over the past three or four decades to developing the forests of Great Britain. I believe that we must take full cognisance of what they have to say and it will be not merely for the benefit of the status of your Lordships' House that we listen to them. Ultimately what is said in this new clause can, I believe, be made a reality—namely, that in the performance of the functions of this Act Ministers shall have regard to the national interest in maintaining and expanding the forestry resources of Great Britain. That is the ideal of those foresters who are represented by the Civil Service Union. That is precisely what they want to do. They have an experienced point of view and it will be to the advantage of the Minister and of the people of this country that he represents if full cognisance is taken of the views of the foresters of Great Britain, represented through the Civil Service Union.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief intervention. It will of course be manifest that many of us have shown concern about the nature of this Bill and rather late in the day the Minister has said that he feels this amendment should be made whereby Ministers shall have regard to the national interest in maintaining and expanding the forestry resources of Great Britain. One welcomes that assurance, after the impression we had about the nature of the measure. Of course, these provisions are indeed welcome, although we feel they do not go far enough.
I thought I might make a personal intervention to say that, although a church commissioner, my interventions have been of a personal nature. I have been seeking safeguards and at least clarification so that they, and such bodies as the Crown Estates Commissioners, the National Trust, local authorities, and indeed all who have responsibilities for forestry, may better know Government thinking on this measure.

211
I need hardly say, of course, that I have sought to ensure that all the public trustees of forest land should have the maximum freedom to exercise their responsibilities as they see fit.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is not altogether easy at this stage of the Bill to know how to reply politely and constructively to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who I think made his maiden speech about a week ago. How far he has followed the proceedings of this Bill, I know not. What I can tell him is that it has had full consideration in both Houses of Parliament, and Ministers—and I have responsibility in this particular direction under the Secretary of State for Scotland—have given very full consideration to a great number of different matters which have been brought to our attention both within and without the Palace of Westminster. That, I think, has been particularly reflected in the guidelines which are now in the Library.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has read them and understood them, but if he has, he will have seen referred to very many of the matters which, quite properly, occupy the attention and indeed the anxieties of those who are engaged in earning their daily bread in our various forestry enterprises, and particularly those employees of the Forestry Commission. I think they will see that the guidelines laid down and the thinking that goes behind this Bill fully take into account their interests and their future.
Having said that, I do not think I can say any more in the context of this particular amendment. What this amendment seeks to do is to carry out the undertaking which I gave at a previous stage in the consideration of this Bill, to consult with my colleagues, the other forestry Ministers, to have consultations with certain noble Lords, and to see if we can put a statutory duty upon Ministers which would, as it were, be over and above the form of the words of the Bill. That we have done, and I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Dulverton has, I think, welcomed it. Whether or not he would have preferred to go down his road in Section 2 or to go down my road in the principal Act, if I may so call it, the 1967 Act, I do not know. I hope he has accepted my argument.
This new clause, which has perhaps understandably attracted the scathing denunciation of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is a genuine and sustained effort on the part of the Government to give effect to and to provide a statutory answer to the many worries which have been voiced by noble Lords at various stages of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I ask that it is in that way that it should be accepted, and it is in that way that I ask it should now be written into the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

  ICI AMMUNITION IN EL SALVADOR
  ICI AMMUNITION IN EL SALVADOR
  INDOCHINA: PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE
  INDOCHINA: PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE
  SOUTH AFRICA: CONFERENCE ON SANCTIONS
  SOUTH AFRICA: CONFERENCE ON SANCTIONS
  THE ERITREAN PARLIAMENT: DISSOLUTION
  THE ERITREAN PARLIAMENT: DISSOLUTION
  IMMIGRATION: SPECIAL VOUCHERS
  IMMIGRATION: SPECIAL VOUCHERS