Sitting of 11 June 1981

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisoners (Statistics)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently in penal establishments in England and Wales.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained in Her Majesty's prisons at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1971 and 1976, respectively.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The total number of inmates of prison department establishments in England and Wales was 40,300 on 30 April 1971; 41,500 on 30 April 1976; and 43,600 on 30 April 1981.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that there is great support for the Government's policy of trying to reduce the size of the prison population? Will he rest assured that he will have the full support of many hon. Members if he resists the ridiculous statements that were recently made by the Magistrates' Association, which opposed the progressive ideas put forward about the parole system?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am not in the least surprised that there is a general desire to reduce the prison population. The various means by which that may be brought about must be looked at with the greatest care. It is not right to say that the Magistrates' Association has made any pronouncement on the proposals set out in the review of parole. They are broad proposals and the Government will listen carefully to comments about them, from whatever quarter they may come.
    Mr. Taylor: Are we not in danger of drifting into having to determine sentences, even for serious crimes, according to the number of cells available? In view of the mounting crisis in our prisons and the failure of existing deterrents, will my hon. and learned Friend look, with an open mind, at the possibility of giving the courts the right
    530
    to impose the penalty of corporal punishment for crimes of violence and vandalism, particularly in view of the sharp rise in violent crime in the one part of the British Isles that until recently used corporal punishment?
    Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend need not fear chat the sentences given by courts will be governed by the number of places available in prisons. As we said in our manifesto, courts must always have medium to long-term prison sentences available for dealing with tough and violent offenders. My hon. Friend will know that a Royal Commission considered corporal punishment in 1938 and again, I think, in 1960. Grave doubts were expressed about the efficacy of corporal punishment as a deterrent. Therefore, I do not hold out much hope for that prospect.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that an overwhelming amount of research supports the view that many prison sentences could be reduced without endangering the public and that the deterrent effect of prison sentences is felt in the early months? Given that, and the desperate need to relieve the scandalous overcrowding that prisoners suffer and in which prison officers have to work, is not there an overwhelmingly powerful case for introducing an automatic parole scheme, as outlined in the review of the parole system?
    Mr. Mayhew: There is a great deal of evidence to show that it is the early stages of a custodial sentence that bite in terms of deterrence. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that long-term sentences are, perhaps surprisingly, not the deterrent that one might—at first sight—suppose. The Government will listen to whatever representations are made on the question whether the proposals set out in the review of parole should become Government policy. The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on these matters and I am grateful to him for his remarks. We genuinely wish to listen to whatever may be said.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is it evident from the latest figures on the prison population that the policy of shorter prison sentences has been a success?
    Mr. Mayhew: The statements by the Court of Appeal and especially the Lord Chief Justice in the cases of Upton and Bibi were made last year. It is too soon to know to what extent that has taken effect in the form of shorter sentences passed by the courts. It is important that the courts pay attention to what the Lord Chief Justice has said, and, naturally enough, the Government are anxious to see what influence those statements will have.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the Contempt of Court [Lords] Bill, soon to be reported to the House, introduces a new imprisonable offence, that of misbehaviour in a magistrates court? As we are trying to imprison fewer people and to increase the number of non-custodial offences, will the hon. and learned Gentleman make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is a separate matter. The Government and those who advocate shorter sentences in proper cases do not advocate depriving the courts of the power to impose a custodial sentence, if they wish to use it, where policy dictates that that is desirable. If it is

    531
    thought that misbehaviour in a magistrates court should be rewarded, on proper grounds, with a prison sentence that must be. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Lady.

    International Terrorism
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will convene a meeting of European Ministers responsible for home affairs to discuss a joint approach to the problems posed by international terrorism.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am planning to hold a meeting of European Community Ministers of the Interior and Ministers of Justice with equivalent responsibilities during the period of the United Kingdom Presidency later this year. This will monitor the work that is already being done to promote co-operation in tackling international terrorism and will consider proposals for furthering that co-operation.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not effective action against international terrorism require international action, able to operate as freely across national frontiers as the FBI operates across State borders in the United States? Although it is clearly desirable that such an organisation should be world-wide, is not the European Community, with its supra-national possibilities, the place in which to start such an organisation going?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There is co-operation between the countries of the Community and much wider. The police co-operation, both through Interpol and in other ways, has achieved considerable results. It is important that it should. Certain restraints must be considered and that is the purpose of such meetings. International co-operation against terrorism is working as well as I believe it can. Without such co-operation things would be more difficult than they are.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Following the European meeting of Ministers, will the Home Secretary consider taking the matter to the United Nations, because if we are to deal with international terrorism it must be dealt with on a worldwide basis?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am strongly in favour of discussions among different countries. I have had some with my counterparts, particularly Herr Baum in the Federal Republic of Germany, and others. I shall pursue it on that basis. We are more likely to achieve more by individual contacts than by a wide debate in the United Nations.
    Mr. Farr: Before my right hon. Friend enters into any such initiative, will he ascertain the views of the incoming Irish Minister for Home Affairs as the Irish Government refused to ratify the Council of Europe convention against terrorism?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The purpose of any such meeting would be to sound out the views not only of the incoming Irish Minister but of the incoming French Minister and almost all the incoming Ministers except Herr Baum of Germany and myself.

    Marches and Demonstrations
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bans on marches have been made in each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In England and Wales, three orders were made in 1974, one in 1977, three in 1978 and six in 1980. Eleven orders have been made this year. No orders were made in other years.
    Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Home Secretary will accept that that shows a disturbing increase in the number of bans. Does he accept that those bans have become necessary because of the failure of the police to prosecute those people who have been preaching racial hatred during demonstrations? Does the Home Secretary agree that in future there should be only selected bans against those who believe in violence and preach racial hatred?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am not in favour of bans. Chief constables ask for bans only in cases where they believe that serious public disorder is likely to occur. It is only on such occasions that I could give approval to bans. I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman in his reasons for some of the disturbances. There are extremist organisations in all parts of the political spectrum which cause trouble, not least by fighting with each other. That is one of the difficulties that we face.
    Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Coventry is in danger of becoming a playground for extremist groups of the Left and Right, who are seeking to make mischief out of the race issue? Will he liaise with the chief constable of the West Midlands and assure him that the majority of the citizens of Coventry would welcome a three-month ban on demonstrations so that local people are given a chance to solve their problems in a calm atmosphere?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There have been disturbing signs of disorder in the West Midlands. I spoke to the chief constable of the West Midlands about that last night. He would have to approach me if, on grounds of serious public disorder, he wished to have a ban on marches. He would prefer the marches to continue, provided that that is possible without serious public disorder. He would approach me only if he thought it was necessary to do so. It must lie in his hands and he will consult the local councils in the area.
    Mr. Hattersley: I revert to my hon. Friend's original question. Does the Home Secretary understand that some marches are a serious threat to law and order and public safety, but many others are not? Is the Home Secretary aware that the Opposition believe that there is a need for legislation that will prevent the individual undesirable march but allow the admirable march to continue? That is the distinction that we want to make.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that. That is one of the matters that will be considered when we review the Public Order Act. I have undertaken to make proposals to deal with that. We must consider them carefully. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we must be extremely careful, if we believe in freedom of expression, that we are not seeking to ban the marches that we do not like and, at the same time, allow those that we like to continue. It is important that we are impartial in that matter.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter comes up again.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his powers to impose blanket bans on marches and demonstrations.
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy of barring marches threatening a breach of the peace.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The only ground on which my consent may be sought to a ban on marches is the likelihood of serious public disorder. The scope and application of the present powers are being considered in the course of the Government's review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation. I shall make a fuller statement on the completion of that review.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the use of blanket bans may prevent entirely innocent and separate groups of people from exercising their cherished democratic rights to demonstrate merely to deal with a group that might be considered a threat to public order? Does the Home Secretary agree that in those circumstances we must recognise that we are giving to Fascists and other like-minded groups the possibility of preventing people who may not be involved in politics to exercise their rights to demonstrate? Will the Minister go for something that is far more selective in dealing with this difficult problem?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept entirely the need to be selective wherever possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that in areas such as the Metropolitan Police area the problem of being selective is that a march then moves slightly, but only very slighty, into an area where there is no ban. That is a special problem facing London and other large conurbations. Apart from that, I agree that we should be selective wherever possible. In the first instance, that is a matter for the chief constable. There is a danger of banning marches that are innocent and should be allowed. I accept that and I shall always try to follow a policy on that basis.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend, in deciding which marches and demonstrations should be banned, continue to give the fullest weight to the fears felt by members of the public, the risk of physical injury to the public and to the police, the cost to local and central government and the damage that is so frequently done to private and public property?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he says. He will be aware that under present legislation a decision by a chief constable to apply for a ban must be based on fear of serious public disorder, as must my response to any proposals put to me by a chief constable. That is the factor that both the chief constable and I have to consider.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of the people of Newham welcomed and appreciated his action in prohibiting a National Front march in the borough recently? Will he further accept that, as a result of a recent racialist killing, about which he has received a deputation, the feeling is so high, especially among the Asian population, that any future National Front march in the borough would be opposed on the streets by the Asian community, apart from anyone else? Such a march should be prevented.
    Is it possible, however, that the right hon. Gentleman can use a less blunt instrument? Is it not absurd that the
    534
    Fulham carnival, designed to raise funds for charity, was banned? Will the right hon. Gentleman take advice from local authorities about which marches are provocative? Will he consider using the Race Relations Act to prevent Fascist marches?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the start of his question. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in considering the situation, should, and does, take into account the views of local boroughs. I should make clear that there were exceptional circumstances at the time of the last ban in the Metropolitan Police area. The commissioner believed that a wider ban was necessary on that occasion. He has no wish to see it happen in the future. Nor have I.
    I accept that casualties included innocent carnivals such as the Fulham carnival. I regret that, although there is no doubt that the ban reduced tension in the Metropolitan area at that time, which was extremely important. I would not go back on that decision for one moment.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give special consideration to processions attended by children under 14 who wish to participate in May Day celebrations and the like and who do not understand the banning of this type of procession, many of which have been taking place for hundreds of years?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I appreciate that the ban that had to be imposed in the Metropolitan area in difficult circumstances had some consequences, which I deplore. I hope very much that it does not have to happen again.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Has not the Home Secretary told deputations that it is possible specifically to ban a single march? Why does he not ban marches by self-professed racialist organisations since racial incitement is a crime? Even if such marches proceed through a non-immigrant area, is not the fact that the march will be reported on television and in the press an affront to, and dangerous for, immigrants throughout the country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters that chief constables, and in London the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, have to consider most carefully in making their applications to me. I come back to the point that, in general terms, we have to look at all marches that may give rise to serious public disorder. That is the criterion under present legislation. If we wish to change the legislation, Parliament has the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made any assessment of the cost saved to the ratepayer and taxpayer in the recent prohibition of marches and demonstrations in the Metropolitan area.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that the cost of policing demonstrations and marches in London last year worked out at an average of over £500,000 a month. Will my right hon. Friend accept that an increasing number of my constituents believe that it would not be a denial of a basic freedom if he had the power to limit the numbers and to restrict the venues—[Interruption]—of such marches and demonstrations, if only in deference to the hard-pressed London ratepayer?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is clear from the reaction in the House that these are controversial areas that will have to be considered when we look into the Public Order Act. At the moment, the chief constables and I have to address ourselves purely to the matter of serious public disorder. I must add, in fairness to my hon. Friend, that those who undertake marches should appreciate the cost that frequently arises in terms of police time and, also, the loss of police effectiveness in many areas from which police have to be moved to look after the marches.
    Mr. Heffer: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that democracy is a costly business? Will not he further agree that it would be simple for a dictatorial regime to cut costs but that such a situation would be unacceptable in this country? Has not the selective concept of marches already been accepted, as shown by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman agreed personally to the Labour Party and trade union march on 1 May and also the people's march, which was perfectly peaceful, successful and friendly and accepted by all as first class for democracy in this country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept all those arguments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am strongly opposed to banning marches unless this becomes absolutely essential. These rights exist in the interests of democracy and freedom of expression. How all of us in a democrecy and a free country exercise those rights should depend to some extent on what we inflict or may inflict on other members of the community.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations to transfer the control of the Metropolitan Police to the Greater London Council.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have received no such representations from the Greater London Council.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Given the special nature of policing in the capital city, will my right hon. Friend confirm that successive Governments of both parties have taken the view that the Home Secretary of the day is the appropriate authority, rather than the Greater London Council, for policing purposes? Does he understand that he will have widespread support if he resists the type of representations suggested in the question?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House recently that the Government will not change the position whereby the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that this has been the policy of successive Governments. I believe that there are good reasons for it. The policing of the capital city, with all the problems of policing Parliament, the seat of the Royal Family and everything else that goes on in London, requires a special position, in the national interest. I believe that Parliament would experience great difficulty if it decided to make a change only to find that there was no one answerable in the House for the problems involved in the policing of Parliament and everything connected with it.

    Detention Centres
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the short, sharp shock sentences have affected the crime level; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mayhew: Serious offences recorded by the police are being analysed as part of the wider evaluation of the tougher regimes' pilot project in detention centres. The results of the evaluation programme are likely to be available in early 1983.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister or his right hon. Friend inform the House, in a short sharp way, to what extent the crime figures have been reduced as a result of this gimmick put forward at the Tory Party conference some time ago? Will he give an assurance that, instead of producing another rabbit out of the hat at the Tory Party conference, the Government will come up with a real answer to the problems of crime by eliminating unemployment, getting rid of poverty and bad housing and tackling the wreckage of the social services, for which the Government are to blame?
    Mr. Mayhew: The reason why the Government will not give figures now about the extent to which the crime rate has been reduced is that, unlike the hon. Gentleman and many members of his party, we pay some attention to the existence or non-existence of evidence as the basis for opinions. We were elected, the hon. Gentleman may remember, to experiment in certain detention centres with a tougher regime. I am glad to say that in the two detention centres, where the experiment is being conducted, a tougher regime does exist. It seems a very satisfactory experiment. That is why the Government have enlarged it.
    Mrs. Faith: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that when I visited Foston Hall detention centre in my constituency during the Easter Recess the warden was very pleased, and welcomed the fact that it would shortly start the short, sharp regime?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the wardens of the two detention centres at Send and New Hall. There is no doubt that at those two centres the pace is quicker, the work is harder, the standards of conduct are higher, and drill parades and inspections impose new demands upon the inmates.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware, if he wants to pay attention to evidence, as he has just said, that extensive research has already been carried out by various bodies into the different regimes at detention centres, including research by the Home Office itself? Will he explain why it is necessary to have yet another experiment, ignoring the evidence that already exists, if it is not to appease the next Conservative Party conference?
    Mr. Mayhew: I suspect that the hon. Lady, with her experience, will know that the re-conviction rate within two years of discharge in junior detention centres is at present 75 per cent., and in senior detention centres 57 per cent. That suggests that there is no ground for supposing that the normal regime at detention centres is not capable of improvement. We wish to experiment, and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the short, sharp shock experience of the hon.

    537
    Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in the not too distant past appears to have had a minor benefit on his behaviour in the House?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is important that we all acknowledge that there is a place for experiment. Many people, including no doubt the hon. Gentleman's own constituents, recognise that there is a place for an experiment with a tougher regime.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Joan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce further measures to reduce the size of the prison population.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to introduce any further measures to reduce the size of the prison population.
    Mr. Mayhew: As indicated in the recent "Review of Parole", my right hon. Friend is considering whether to extend the concept of parole to shorter-term prisoners. Meanwhile, a significant reduction in the prison population is most likely to be achieved through the implementation of the guidance given by the Court of Appeal regarding custodial sentences for less serious offences.
    Mr. Evans: What is the cost of keeping someone in prison for a week? As the hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, there are 43,000 people in prison. What is the total public expenditure? Does he agree that radical alternatives to custodial sentences are needed as forms of punishment? Does he support the Home Office working party document, which suggests open prisons in urban areas?
    Mr. Mayhew: As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said earlier on the subject of democracy, it is an expensive business. Prison accommodation is necessary for those who should be in prison for the protection of the public. I think that the cost on average is about £136 a week—I do not carry the figure in my head—to keep someone in prison. It is important to take a balanced view of our present sentencing practices. If possible, we should reduce the use of custodial sentences, without increasing the risk to the public. That is the thinking that guides the Government's policy.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that on current estimates about 100 probation officers will finish their training this summer and not find employment within the probation service? Does he agree that that is a deplorable waste of trained manpower, particularly at a time when both he and the Home Secretary are enjoining greater use of the probation order, and when, if the review of the parole system is implemented, a further 7,000 parolees will be supervised by the probation service? Will the Minister now inject further cash into the probation service to ensure that those people are employed and that more people are supervised in the community
    Mr. Mayhew: Any unemployment in any sector of the community is tragic and should be avoided, if possible. However, it cannot be right to change sentencing practices simply to provide employment for probation officers. One of the consequences—possibly not one of primary importance—of the proposals put forward by the parole review is that the number of probation officers would need
    538
    to be increased to supervise those released. However, I emphasise that that is not a primary reason for changing sentencing practices.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the reduction in prison sentences should not be looked upon as an alternative to an adequate prison building programme? Does he support what the chairman of the Parole Board said, that if 3,000 people were not currently on parole the prison system would break down?
    Mr. Mayhew: The latter part of my hon. Friend's question is true. We inherited no prison building programme from the Labour Government. We have set in train a substantial programme of two new prison starts a year, beginning in this financial year, but that will provide no additional places in the prison system before the late 1980s. Adequate prison accommodation must be available for those for whom it is needed in order to protect the public.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Is the Minister aware that the Government's policy is having no effect on Armley prison in my constituency, that the situation continues to deteriorate week by week, and that the recent reply that I received from Lord Belstead that there would be no improvements there until 1987, at the earliest, is intolerable? Will he consider expediting the plans to extend that prison and make it more tolerable?
    Mr. Mayhew: I note the hon. Gentleman's proper concern about conditions in the prison in his constituency. I cannot hold out hopes of an expedited implementation of the programme there, but it highlights the critical nature of prison overcrowding as a whole.

    Liquor Licensing (Erroll Committee)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce measures to implement the Erroll committee's report on liquor licensing.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The Government have at present no plans for further legislation in this area.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the licensing laws are out of date and in urgent need of reform? Does the Home Office ever intend to introduce the proposals in the Erroll report?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend will know that some of the proposals in the Erroll report are being implemented. On the general point, I recognise the many anomalies that exist in this sphere. On the other hand, we recognise that there is much concern about the extent of offences connected with drink, especially among young people, and that has produced a climate in which it is difficult to make progress.
    Mr. McNally: Does the Minister realise that his reply is a red herring? The offences and hours correlation has not been proved. As long as the licensing hours remain unreformed, they do damage to the tourist industry and take no account of changes in leisure preference and working hours.
    Mr. Raison: I recognise the dissatisfaction with the present situation. I can only say again that the chance of

    539
    achieving significant reform would be much better if there were not strongly justified anxiety about the extent of drinking, particularly among young people.

    Riot Act
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in considering legislation to replace the Riot Act.
    Mr. Whitelaw: This is among the matters I am considering in my review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation, on which I shall make a statement in due course.
    Mr. Marlow: In the meantime, does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be the likelihood of fewer riots in London, Northern Ireland, at the seaside and at football matches if the risk to rioters were rather greater that they would be apprehended; if apprehended, charged with a fairly simple charge; if charged, found guilty or innocent rapidly, and without a great deal of controversy; and, if found guilty, sentenced to perhaps a short sharp shock? In that way we could discourage rioting.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am not sure that many of the consequences that my hon. Friend and I want would necessarily follow from a change in the Riot Act. It is important to stress that the police have extensive powers at common law to deal with unlawful assemblies. Those powers include a power to disperse an assembly when an obstruction is being caused, when the police reasonably apprehend a breach of the peace, or when there is a breach of the peace. The police already have considerable powers. Under the present arrangements they are used and people can be taken to the courts and sentenced firmly.

    Radio Station (Northampton)
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to announce a starting date for an independent local radio station in Northampton.
    Mr. Mayhew: A proposal for an independent local radio station to serve Northampton was made in the third report of the Home Office local radio working party, published on 18 December 1980. My right hon. Friend invited comments on the report by 30 April 1981. He is now considering the report's recommendations in the light of the many comments received.
    Mr. Morris: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Northampton has been waiting for more than five years for this commercial station? Is it not unacceptable that the leading centre of the East Midlands should be denied the facility of commercial radio?
    Mr. Mayhew: I understand the strength of public opinion on the need for such a station, and my hon. Friend's interest, too. My right hon. Friend received more than 500 representations following the publication of the report, and it is important that he should give them proper consideration. He will announce his decision as soon as he can.

    Local Elections (Ballot Papers)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ballot papers in the recent local elections were disqualified for lack of an official mark.
    Mr. Mayhew: The information is not available centrally.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful to him for the letter on this subject of national elections, which I received this morning? Does he agree that it is unfair that a voter who casts his vote in a proper manner should have that vote disqualified by the sloppiness or incompetence of the polling clerk? Is he aware that that has occurred on a number of occasions recently in Sheffield? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Mayhew: Of course I agree that it is unfair and that it should not happen. Fortunately, it happens on a proportionately tiny scale. At the last general election 3,282 ballot papers were rejected for want of an official mark. That is an average of five per constituency.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this matter and others connected with electoral law should be considered by the House now? When will he produce a White Paper on the Representation of the People Act?
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is engaged in a review of electoral law and hopes to publish his conclusions shortly.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: May I reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about unfairness? Why cannot ballot papers that lack the official mark be included in the count unless the number of ballot papers in a box exceeds the number issued?
    Mr. Mayhew: That can be done, but the present procedure, which has been in force since 1872, was instituted to provide as good a safeguard as reasonably practical against impersonation. One can envisage a number of variations. These matters fall to be considered as part of the review of electoral law.

    London (Community Relations)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the issue of community relations in London.
    Mr. Raison: Community relations is a subject on which regular and close contact is maintained between our officials and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Have recent discussions covered the growing practice of the police demanding passports from people even when they are involved in minor traffic offences? Have there been discussions about the problem, particularly in London, of the increasing number of assaults on people and attacks on property? May we have an assurance that such issues are under constant review by the Department and the Metropolitan Police?
    Mr. Raison: These issues are under constant review. Police authorities throughout the country know the position about asking to see passports.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that certain community relations counsellors in London seem to regard it as part of their duty to undermine the police?
    Mr. Raison: The effectiveness of the work of CRCs varies. Overall, we believe that they are making an important contribution.

    Open Channel Radio
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given any further consideration to the representations he has received on the conversion of existing citizens band radio equipment to FM; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Raison: Citizens band apparatus for the authorised service to be introduced in the autumn will have to conform to the technical standards embodied in the relevant Home Office specifications. Provided that these are met, there is no objection in principle to the use of converted citizens band equipment.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: With more than one-third of a million illegal AM sets in circulation in the United Kingdom, should not the Home Secretary and the Minister of State intervene to ensure that public money is made available to British manufacturers so that conversion equipment is available? Does the Minister accept that if he fails to do that there will be massive imports later this year of legal or conversion equipment?
    Mr. Raison: A number of manufacturers have already stated their intention to produce CB equipment in Britain. Several testing and development licences have been issued to British companies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Farrasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a State banquet given by King Khalid.
    Mr. Farr: In the midst of my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she have an opportunity to study the grave statement by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in which he claimed not only that the Government had refused or declined to answer a letter from President Brezhnev relating to disarmament, but that a future Labour Government would enter into unilateral nuclear disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such statements are worrying to our national independence and security? Will she give them her urgent attention?
    The Prime Minister: I noted the Leader of the Opposition's remarks. I did, of course, reply to President Brezhnev's letter. The fact of my reply was known. I replied in early April. I join my hon. Friend in wholly
    542
    condemning the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting that unilateral disarmament will be possible in, some circumstances. That seems to me to be a way to reduce our capacity to defend our own people, while leaving intact the aggressor's capacity to attack us.
    Mr. Foot: Perhaps the Prime Minister and the House would like to await the publication of the letter that I have sent. I am sure that the country wants positive action to be taken by Britain to help to stop the nuclear arms race. What I am concerned about is that the Government seem to show an inadequate response to the proportion of events.
    Will the facts that prompted the Leader of House to say that we have not yet reached the bottom of the trough of the recession, and on which he based his speech, be before the Cabinet at the emergency meeting on the economic cisis next week? In the meantime, may the facts be presented to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition. We do, indeed, want multilateral disarmament, but why should a country come to the table for multilateral disarmament talks when he has said that we will disarm unilaterally? That is the very circumstance in which there is no need to come to multilateral disarmament talks. It undermines any possibility that we might have of getting those talks under way, which we want to do.
    There is no emergency meeting of the Cabinet. We hear that comment every time we embark on the new public expenditure review. We heard it last year, the assertion has been made this year and I expect that it will be made next year. In the meantime, we shall carry on as normal.
    Mr. Foot: The Opposition would be happy to have a debate in the House on the nuclear arms race and how to stop it, as soon as the Government can find the time. We will then have before us all the documents that we shall have to present. We shall have our letter to Mr. Brezhnev, which is much better than any response by the Prime Minister.
    To revert to the emergency meeting next week, is the Prime Minister really saying to the House and the country that next Wednesday, in the midst of the economic crisis, she will be discussing further expenditure cuts, which will only add to the horrific employment figures? Did not her own Leader of the House say that even when we reach the bottom of the recession the recovery will be slow and unspectacular? Does not that mean that unemployment will continue to increase year after year, to the end of the right hon. Lady's term of office?
    The Prime Minister: We always begin the public expenditure survey, which must be carried out each year, with an economic assessment. That is common practice. There is nothing unusual about it. It is the right way to begin. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the economic position, two factors must be taken into account. First, there will be increases in unemployment, as I have said before, if for no other reason than the large number of school leavers who want jobs this year. It is a larger number than in previous years, with the exception of last year. The number will be large again next year. Secondly, on the question of the general state of the recession, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman noted the report in The Times of a European Commission report which said:

    543
    "Signs of United Kingdom recovery now apparent."
    Mr. Foot: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the most terrifying statements that she has made in Parliament—and that is saying something—is that she intends to continue with her present policy? Does she not understand that one of the purposes of the Cabinet meeting with her fellow Ministers is to enable them to underline the facts in the statement made by the Leader of the House, which directly conflicts with the Treasury statement and the statement that she has just made?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks for good economic news, he will find examples in the recent good orders that have been received by the shipbuilding and engineering industries. No doubt he will have observed that sales of cars in May were higher than in any other May, save for 1973. That is good news, and how the right hon. Gentleman hates it.
    Mr. Renton: Let us not worry for a moment about letters to Mr. Brezhnev. What does my right hon. Friend think about the letter received by Mr. Kania and other leaders in Poland from Mr. Brezhnev hinting at Russian intervention in Poland's internal affairs?
    The Prime Minister: We must make it clear once again, as we have done on many occasions—my hon. Friend underlines this—that it is the right of every country to determine its future in its own way, free from interference. We wish that view to apply to the Warsaw Pact countries, as well as to countries in the West.
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend consider the threatened escalation of the Civil Service dispute and the resulting fear in the minds of the elderly and those in receipt of child benefit and other social security benefits? Will she ensure that if one old-age pensioner, one mother entitled to child benefit or one social security claimant is harmed because of the escalation, not only will Civil service honours for 1981 be scrapped, but the final settlement achieved will not, under any circumstances, be backdated?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that because of militant action by a small minority of civil servants some people are in danger of not receiving child benefit or unemployment benefit. Some people are finding it difficult to obtain passports and a number are finding it difficult to obtain their VAT refunds or agricultural payments.
    I join my hon. Friend in totally and utterly condemning those who wish to pursue their own ends by harming and damaging the interests of the public. I utterly condemn anyone who wishes to pursue his own selfish ends by wilfully harming the interests of the public, especially the weakest sections—[Interruption.] The vast majority of civil servants are staying loyally—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Prime Minister not fight to be heard? She is entitled to a hearing. The Opposition Front Bench should not be shouting.
    The Prime Minister: Most civil servants are staying loyally at their posts, and many are working overtime to
    544
    ensure that benefits are distributed. I do not wish to harm them in any way, or to harm their interests. An offer of a 7 per cent. increase has been made. We must bear in mind that 98·5 per cent. of civil servants are on incremental scales which gives them another 2·3 per cent. This year's pay settlement starts from the beginning of the financial year, 1 April. Therefore, on average, the increase in civil servants' pay this year, based on the offer already made, would be 11 per cent. above their pay last year.
    Mr. McNally: Is the Prime Minister not increasingly irritated with press speculation that she intends to renege on her clear commitment to pensioners? Has she read today's issue of The Guardian? In advance of the public expenditure review, will she repeat that she intends to stand by her pledge to keep pensions in line with inflation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we have made that perfectly clear.
    Mr. Body: Did my right hon. Friend see the report yesterday that officials of water authorities can claim a car allowance of £2·49 per mile? Does she consider that everyone in the public service should have the same allowance—be they civil servants, nurses or anyone else? Do not nurses make journeys that are as important as those made by water board officials?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen that report today. I shall make inquiries about the matter. We must bear in mind that there is great public resentment at the level of water rates. We shall need to consider that figure carefully. Allowances are negotiatied separately, as are our allowances. However, I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. English: The Prime Minister mentioned the annual publication of a public expenditure White Paper and similar documents. Why was the first document that she produced reduced in content and information by 98 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: I did not refer to the White Paper. I referred to the public expenditure survey process, which begins now.
    Mr. Moateasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much the Leader of the Opposition chooses to forget about his responsibilities for administering Government pay policy, the House is at least entitled to know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Civil Service dispute? Does he condemn or support the proposed escalation of the strike action, which could harm the old and the sick? Will my right hon. Friend invite the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear to the House whether he will join us in condemning any such action?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. I unreservedly condemn cold and callous action towards people by militant members of the Civil Service, who should serve our people, not cause them harm or damage.
    Mr. Foot: The words "cold and callous" come strangely from the lips of the right hon. Lady. If she thinks that she has such a good case on the Civil Service dispute, why is she so afraid to allow the matter to go to arbitration?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have also to reconcile what they pay their employees with what the private sector can afford to pay us all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he suspended pay research over a considerable period of his Government and will cast the beam out of his own eye first.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady is trying to mislead the country once again. When we made the suspension there was a similar provision for the rest of the economic field. The right hon. Lady has taken out the reference of the Civil Service. She has torn up its system and refused to go to arbitration. The more that she comes to the Dispatch Box to read out her case on the Civil Service, the stronger becomes the case for referring the matter to arbitration.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is going to ask a question.
    Mr. Foot: May I ask the right hon. Lady to review the case again and consider what we said to her at the beginning of the dispute? We warned her of many of the dangers and difficulties. All those dangers and difficulties lie at her door because she neglected all our advice from the very beginning.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman left the pay for the Civil Service in an appalling state. Civil servants were so far behind that the Government had to honour all the blank cheques that the previous Government had left and award the Civil Service increases in pay which, over the past two years, have amounted to 50 per cent. to pay for the damage that the right hon. Gentleman left. On top of that there is another offer of 7 per cent., which year-on-year will amount to 11 per cent. That is very good treatment by an employer of his valued employees.

Prime Minister's Questions
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Ministers' Question Time overruns Prime Minister's Question Time, you are sometimes generous enough to tell the House that you will allow it what you call injury time afterwards. May I suggest that when the Leader of the Opposition abuses his right at the Dispatch Box and returns again and again to the same question on a Supply day, thereby preventing you from calling Back Benchers on both sides of the House, you should consider allowing injury time after 3.30 pm—on Supply days only? It would abviously be unfair if, by abusing the procedures of the House, the Leader of the Opposition could take up Government time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to prolong this issue. This is a Supply day. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has made his proposal, which I shall bear in mind.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to allow injury time, will you include all the Prime Minister's replies?
Mr. Speaker: I think that it is in everybody's interest to move on and not to pursue this matter now.
Mr. David Crouch: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had the impression before the end of questions to the Prime Minister that perhaps, you were showing some dispensation or discretion to the Leader of the Opposition on the way in which he put his first question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is an attack on the Chair.
Mr. Crouch: Ordinary Back Benchers are normally required by you, Mr. Speaker, to confine their question to the Prime Minister to one subject. However, the Leader of the Opposition put his question in two parts. The first part was about unilateral disarmament. He then continued with an entirely different question while still on his feet and asked about the state of the economy. Is that normal? Is it your decision that it should continue in that way, Mr. Speaker?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his defence of the Chair. It is not often that my breath is taken away. The House knows that a special latitude is allowed to the Leader of the Opposition. I am anxious that contributions from all hon. Members at Question Time should be in the form of a question, however excited or indignant right hon. and hon. Members may be and regardless of any other emotion to which they are given.

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Debate on the problems of the North-West region.
Motion on EEC documents 4318/79 and 9175/80 on food aid management.
TUESDAY 16 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Contempt of Court Bill [Lords].
Debate on the report of an inter-party group on the Government of Scotland and on motions relating to amendments to Standing Orders for Scottish business.
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an opposition motion on the Monopolies Commission report on domestic gas appliances, followed by a debate on an Opposition motion on the Armitage report on lorries, people and the environment.
Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 19 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
I think that it will help the House if I say that formal notice of the introduction of the Representation of the People Bill will be given today for presentation and publication tomorrow. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House and a courtesy to the House to be aware of this proposed legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Foot: May I put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman? First, when may we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment about his breach of faith in compulsorily transferring housing from the GLC to the London boroughs? We demanded a statement about the matter a short while ago and we are still awaiting that statement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements for that to happen. We regard the Secretary of State's honour as being involved.
Secondly, I ask for a clear assurance that we shall have a full day's debate on the Mexico summit meeting, in Government time and in good time for the issue to be properly debated. It seems that the Government's consideration of the issue may not take place until after the House has gone into recess in the summer. That would be unsatisfactory. We ask for an absolute assurance. We feel that the Government have not provided the Opposition with the time that they should have given us to debate the Armitage report. We have had to give up some of our time to enable the House to reach a decision on the report. The Government should have provided the time, and should have done so in good time. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that we shall have a full day's debate prior to the preparations being made for the Mexico summit meeting.
Thirdly—the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I return to this issue, as I have to return to

549
it week after week because the Government consistently fail to provide time for the House to discuss the major domestic problem facing the country—I take up again the curse of unemployment and the Government's apparent readiness to accept the continual increase in unemployment. In a speech this week the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he believes that the underlying economic situation means that unemployment will continue to increase. Let him provide the debate that he should have provided next week. He could provide a debate the week after next. We shall debate the Representation of the People Bill—which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for the week after next—when it is presented to the House, but we are doubtful whether the Government are wise to proceed with such a measure. We think that it would be much better for the House to debate unemployment, including unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is extremely serious.
Mr. Pym: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, as I said I would before the Whitsun Recess, I have had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Having gone into the matter, I can say that what my right hon. Friend did was regular and not, as alleged by the Leader of the Opposition, irregular. I do not intend that a statement should be made about that.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I entirely agree about the importance of the Mexico summit. The Government recognise the widespread concern in the House about the prospects for developing countries. We are approaching the Mexico summit in a thoroughly constructive spirit. However, the preparations are still at a preliminary stage. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman the debate for which he asks, but I shall take careful note of the representations that he makes.
We are grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for providing time for a debate on the Armitage report. When he last raised the matter with me I said that the Government were still considering representations received. That is still the position.
On the important matter of unemployment, I assure the right hon. Gentleman yet again that I have not ignored his representations. He raises a request on a most important matter. We could have had a debate next Thursday, but I thought that in view of the strong representations for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement it was right to provide a Government day for that before the issue is discussed in Europe on Monday 22 June. Therefore, I could not postpone the debate any further. I cannot provide a day in Government time next week, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I did last week, that I am keeping that possibility much in mind.
Mr. Foot: Of course we are in favour of the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. I am glad that the Government have provided some time for that. The right hon. Gentleman's answers on the three other matters were unsatisfactory.
Time and again we have discussed providing Government time for debates on unemployment, which is becoming increasingly serious. We are now fobbed off with another suggestion, that the right hon. Gentleman may be looking at the matter afresh. We want the Government to provide time in the House to discuss the
550
greatest domestic issue facing the country. If the Cabinet is having a discussion next week, all the more reason for having a debate in the House.
With regard to the two other questions, I tell the right hon. Gentleman now that it would be unsatisfactory for us to drift into the summer with the Government going off to the Mexico summit meeting without having had a debate here. We do not trust the Government on that subject, as on most others. They have not shown much enthusiasm. Their early reception of the Brandt report did not encourage anyone to believe that they were taking the matter seriously. It is probably only because of the pressure and the important lobby that took place that a change of mind is occurring. The House of Commons has the right to have a debate on that subject.
As for the first question, the right hon. Gentleman has left us with no alternative. We shall have to seek our own time for a motion of censure on the Secretary of State for the Environment, because we believe that his honour was involved and that anyone who studies the facts must come to that conclusion.
Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman protests a little too much. I provided a Government day on unemployment—I know that it was a long time ago. I do not believe that the response that I gave today or last week could be described as fobbing off. I thought that it was helpful. In the business that I have announced for next week I have provided a day for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. Therefore, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is being rather unreasonable about the way in which I am trying to help the whole House to make the best use of the time available.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Leader of the House aware that the only justification for the Bill that he has announced, which amends the Representation of the People Act, is the emergency and exceptional situation in Northern Ireland, which we accept? However, the principle is an unhappy one. Does he accept that that has arisen only because of the Government's refusal to countenance legislation for an electoral system in Northern Ireland that is the same as the one that we legislated for the local elections and Euro-elections in the Province?
Mr. Pym: That is an important matter. It arose because, when the law was adjusted in 1967, no one foresaw what the consequences could be in certain circumstances. What is in our minds is the serious situation in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. The Government have given the most careful and deepest consideration to that difficult problem. Tomorrow, when the Bill is published, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see what it proposes to do.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow these questions to continue until 4 o'clock, because there is an important statement to follow and it is a Supply day, which I know is of considerable concern to the House.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Leader of the House aware that there will be widespread support for the Representation of the People Bill, which he has just announced. I assure him that, in accordance with our understanding, I shall be prepared to consider withdrawing my House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill to facilitate Government legislation to protect the electoral processes against farcical exploitation.
Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. We gave an undertaking to him that before a certain date when his Bill might come before the House we would make an announcement. The details will be made public tomorrow.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for finding time for a debate next week on the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement. There is no doubt that he has responded to the strong feelings on both sides of the House and has thus enabled hon. Members representing textile and clothing constituencies to make representations to the Government before the important meeting on 23 June.
Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange for a member of the Government to make a statement in the House on an initiative to try to find a peaceful settlement to the problems of Namibia—South-West Africa—and perhaps put forward a Proposition that a group of nations, including the United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Yugoslavia and Kenya might supervise elections there? Does he agree that the stability and the non-Communist control of that part of the world are essential to the West and to the United Kingdom in particular?
Mr. Pym: I am glad that it was possible to make arrangements for the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement next week. I shall discuss my hon. Friend's second point with my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. Speaker: As there is a time limit, I hope that we can have brief questions.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House will know that there is an exceptional meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is attending today, to discuss the extent of unemployment in Europe and the lack of action of European Governments so far. Will he make certain that his right hon. and learned Friend makes a statement to the House when he returns to London?
Mr. Pym: I shall convey that request to my right hon. and learned Friend and discuss the matter with him.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: My right hon. Friend will have noted that when the Leader of the Opposition was rather excited he attacked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for not providing time for a debate on unilateral nuclear disarmament. He will also have noticed that the subject for debate today has been selected by the Opposition. Will he tell us whether the Leader of the Opposition has thought of providing time for a debate on unilateral nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Pym: I do not know whether he has done so. He has not asked me for such a debate this afternoon. We had a debate on nuclear matters fairly recently. During the past 18 months the Government have given time to that subject. Therefore, it is open to the Opposition to choose that subject for one of their days, if they so wish.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Leader of the House aware that during discussions on the Scotland Bill my colleague and I were frequently reminded that Great Britain was a unitary State? The business announced for Monday is entitled "Problems of the North-West Region", so should I have the privilege of making the opening speech? Will the right hon. Gentleman in future
552
arrange that problems in those areas are referred to as problems either of the British Midlands or of the North-West of England?
Mr. Pym: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is the Opposition's prerogative and right to choose the title of the debate, but I am sure that his contribution will be extremely welcome.
Rev. Ian Paisley: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) premature moving of a writ by the that necessitated the Representation of the People Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whether the voting system is in the form of proportional representation or single transferable vote, a majority is always a majority? Will all the stages of the Bill be taken on Monday week? If not, what time limit will be set on discussion?
Mr. Pym: I agree that a majority is a majority, whatever the system. I have announced a full day until 10 o'clock for the Second Reading on Monday week. In a subsequent Business Statement I shall announce the subsequent stages of the Bill.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not time that we had a statement or a debate on the Government's scandalous treatment of nurses and ambulance men? Why should those who look after the safety of others, such as firemen and ambulance men, have a rigid pay increase imposed on them of only 6 or 7 per cent., especially when the Government's mandate from the electorate was not to introduce a pay policy? Why cannot nurses and ambulance men be treated like policemen, who received 21 per cent.?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman may have helped you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but I am not sure whether he has helped me. All that I can say is that negotiations on nurses' pay are in progress.
Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on public health statutory instrument 1981/665, against which a prayer has been tabled by Opposition Members? Is he aware that the matter concerns gipsies in London and the peripheral counties, which is an urgent problem and which worries my county council and others adjacent to London?
Mr. Pym: I cannot find time next week, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. George Foulkes: When the Bill on the Canadian constitution comes before the House, will all stages be taken on the Floor of the House, as is normal with such Bills, and will there be a free vote, without the Government imposing a three-line Whip and attempting to bulldoze an important measure through an unwilling House?
Mr. Pym: At this stage in the proceedings, any aspect of a Canadian Bill or the possibility thereof remains entirely speculative.
Mr. Dick Douglas: When will the Secretary of State for Defence conclude his survey and, instead of making speeches to Conservative Back Benchers, tell the House what the future defence policy will be? Is he aware that those of us with dockyard constituencies are very worried?
Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend has said publicly that he intends to make a statement in July. I have no reason to suppose that there is any change in that.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: In view of the Prime Minister's stubborn refusal to allow the Civil Service pay dispute to go to independent arbitration, will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate so that we can discuss the Government's hyprocrisy and moral bankruptcy, which have allowed Ministers to receive pay awards of up to 136 per cent. in a catching-up exercise and yet refuse to allow civil servants their modest claim?
Mr. Pym: The debate last Friday would appear to show that the hon. Gentleman's comparison is not accurate, but, however that may be, I cannot find time for a debate next week. I remind him that earlier this week we had a statement in the House and in another place about the current state of play in this unfortunate dispute.
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the matter, as statements on the dispute have not helped? Is he aware that sharp remarks that have been made have highlighted the lack of awareness in the Government—including the Prime Minister—of the strength of feeling in the Civil Service—a feeling that goes far beyond militants, to a wide spectrum of civil servants who are appalled that their pay agreements and arbitration rights have been torn up by their employer? May the House properly debate the matter so that the public and civil servants can hear a full and fair debate of issues crucial to the nation, which faces the first Civil Service strike since 1926?
Mr. Pym: I regret that I cannot respond in the way that the hon. Gentleman hopes.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Leader of the House accept that, apart from the nuclear arms race, world poverty is the most serious problem facing mankind? With both sides of the House supporting the Brandt report, may we debate it before the Mexico summit?
Mr. Pym: We have already provided time to debate the report. I believe that it was one day in our time and one in Opposition time. I note the Opposition's representations.
Mr. John Smith: The Leader of the House announced the Supply day debate on the Monopolies Commission report on domestic gas appliances. The House is anxious to know whether the Government will reach a decision on the report before or during the debate, or whether they will wait until after. Can the right hon. Gentleman help us on that now, or before the debate begins?
Mr. Pym: I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman now, but no doubt the matter will be raised during the debate.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: When will we have an opportunity to debate the important proposals of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure and the
554
reactionary suggestions in the Government's White Paper on young offenders? May we have an opportunity to debate the White Paper in advance of the legislation promised for next Session?
Mr. Pym: Again, I regret that I cannot respond positively to the request, although I fully accept the importance of the subject and the interest in it. I make time available as I can for debates of interest to the House, but I cannot respond positively or favourably to that request.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Both sides of the House are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has responded by providing time for the important textile debate, but will he consider, in the longer term, providing time to debate health and safety at work? Is he aware that it is seven years since the Act was passed and that more people are injured at work than stop work through strike action? Will he accept that in Government time the House has not had a proper and orderly debate on that important matter?
Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning of his question. I shall consider his request, although I am bound to say that Government time is unlikely to be available.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is the worst possible time to change the Representation of the People Act, and that the measure will be widely seen both here and abroad as changing the electoral rules only to prevent a recurrence of the recent election result in Northern Ireland? Will he reconsider the matter?
Mr. Pym: That is not an appropriate question on business for next week, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, however quickly he may jump to certain conclusions, we have given a great deal of consideration to the matter. The situation in Northern Ireland is a source of the greatest worry to the House and we must attend to it in the best way that we can. There is a heavy responsibility on the Government to take such action as they feel most appropriate. All the considerations have been borne in mind. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman can of course advance his point of view when the Bill comes up for debate.
Mr. Tom McNally: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that although there is gratitude for the provision of time for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, many other trade matters, such as trade with Japan and the United States, and Community fair trade matters, require an airing and a debate in the House? Is he aware that there is a Select Committee report that would provide the basis for such a debate? Will he give an assurance that such a debate will take place before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Pym: I cannot say whether that will be possible. I do not think that it is very likely. However, I suspect that there will be an opportunity, in one form or another, on one occasion or another, before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Northern Ireland (Prison Escape)
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the escape from Her Majesty's prison Belfast. Eight prisoners escaped from that prison yesterday afternoon at about 4.15 pm. All of them were at the time on remand. The trial of seven of them had already ended, and the judge is expected to deliver his judgment tomorrow. Four of those were charged with the murder of an Army officer, Captain Westmacott, who was killed when the Army and police surrounded a house in the Antrim Road, Belfast, in May 1980. Two were charged with the murder, in April 1980, of Police Constable Magill. The seventh man, Ryan, was charged with the murder of an RUC constable, Reserve Constable Scott, in 1976 and a former member of the UDR, Mr. Fowler, in 1978. The eighth man, Gerard Sloan, was charged with being in possession of explosives. The trial in this last case has not yet begun.
The escape began while the eight prisoners were in discussion with three solicitors in three separate groups, each group in a cubicle in the visiting room, which is some 15 yds inside the main gate of the prison. The prisoners produced three pistols. Four prison officers were forced to hand over their uniforms, which were put on by four of the escaping prisoners. The escapers then made their way to the main gate of the prison, severely injuring a prison officer who attempted to prevent them from leaving the visiting area. The prison officer was struck on the head and is in hospital with a suspected fractured skull.
At the main gate, prison officers on duty were forced at gunpoint to allow the prisoners to leave. The eight prisoners then went immediately to two cars, which were apparently waiting for them. Up to this point they had not discharged firearms. The alarm was raised at the main gate, alerting other prison officers, and the Army and the police. At least one shot was fired by the escapers. Fire was returned by the Army and the police. Nobody appears to have been hit. The two vehicles were abandoned not far away. It seems that the prisoners then hijacked other vehicles to continue their escape.
The police and Army mounted a large-scale operation immediately after the escape. This is continuing, but so far none of the escaped prisoners has been arrested.
Immediately after the escape two solicitors and one solicitor's apprentice were arrested and are still in police custody, as are two other men subsequently arrested in connection with the escape.
I regard an event such as this as a matter of the utmost gravity, and I am sure that the House will agree. Apart from apprehending those who escaped, which is a matter for the police, the immediate essential is to find out what went wrong and to take steps to stop it happening again. To this end, at my request, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made available Mr. W. H. Pearce, CBE, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, to conduct an urgent inquiry into security arrangements at the prison relevant to the escape of the eight men and to report to me. The inquiry will begin immediately.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: The Opposition view with alarm the break-out by the prisoners and welcome the Secretary of State's assurance of a thorough
556
investigation. A special word of praise is due to those prison officers who, for obvious reasons, are unarmed within the prison but who tried to stop these armed prisoners. I am sure that the House will wish a speedy recovery to those prison officers who were injured.
From my experience, it seems all too plain that the break-out succeeded only because the prisoners were somehow able to arm themselves. In my experience, I am assured that without weapons they would have been overpowered within the prison. The question to be answered in the investigation, therefore, is how the prisoners managed to arm themselves. Who were their last visitors? Were those visitors searched, and, if not, why not? Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that if the investigation shows that the arms were smuggled in from outside the full rigour of the law will be applied, irrespective of who was responsible or why it was done? Those of us who have suffered seven years of intimidation from one source or another would not take too kindly to a plea of intimidation and I certainly believe that such a plea should not be accepted.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there has been no relaxation or change in the search procedures of late? If there has, will he explain why?
Finally, what about the Government's special relationship with the Government of the South, of whichever party it is today? Can the House be assured that that relationship will mean that if the escaped prisoners show up in the South they will be returned immediately to the authorities in the North?
Mr. Atkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the prison officers, who command every support. They do a difficult job very well. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join the right hon. Gentleman and myself in wishing a speedy recovery to the prison officer who was severely injured.
The right hon. Gentleman's other points are matters with which the inquiry will be particularly concerned. As he said, it is clear from what we know already that the prisoners managed to secure arms. For obvious reasons the prison officers are unarmed, but the prisoners managed to secure arms and it was those arms alone, that enabled them to effect their escape. I cannot yet tell the House how they secured them. It will be the purpose of the inquiry to see whether the procedures are correct. There are also, of course, the police investigations. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that anyone who is found to have broken the law will be brought to justice in the ordinary way—and quite right, too.
There has been no official relaxation of the search procedures. It will be for the inquiry to determine whether those procedures are adequate and, if they are not, to recommend to me how they can be improved.
I do not know where the escaped prisoners are at the moment, but I hope and believe that they will be recaptured. If they are in the South, I hope and believe that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland will assist in their return to hear judgment—they have stood trial already—and, if there are other charges to be laid against them, to stand trial in the North.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the defending solicitors, Mr. Kelly, is himself a former Republican internee who qualified in law while serving in the Maze

557
prison? Will he also confirm that two of Mr. Kelly's brothers are at this moment in very senior positions in the IRA? Will he comment upon the real fear that IRA agents have infiltrated the legal profession in Northern Ireland in order to promote anarchy and subversion? Finally, does he agree that the security authorities would be most unwise to assume that certain persons who have access to prisoners can be trusted not to organise their escape?
Mr. Atkins: I can confirm that one of those arrested by the police and currently held in custody is Mr. Kelly. I am not personally aware of his training, nor am I personally responsible for the conditions which admit solicitors into the profession in Northern Ireland. However, the hon. Gentleman may be assured that if anybody whom the police suspect of having broken the law can be proved to have done so he will be brought to court, whoever he is.
As regards whether people visiting prisoners can be trusted, the whole regime of searching visitors to prisons is designed to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen. Nevertheless, it happened. Something went wrong. That is why I am very glad to have the assistance of Mr. Pearce to find out what went wrong so that we may take steps to see that it does not happen again.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I join the Opposition spokesman and the Secretary of State in wishing the injured prison officer a speedy recovery.
I wish to put some questions to the Secretary of State on this matter, which has appalled the people of Northern Ireland. First, will he say where the cubicles were located? Were they on the first floor of the prison, immediately opposite the prison gate, or were they in the basement?
The right hon. Gentleman said that three solicitors had taken part in three separate consultations. Was the third solicitor arrested? The right hon. Gentleman's statement referred only to two solicitors and a solicitor's clerk. Would it not be most unusual if a solicitor's clerk alone were allowed to hold consultations in the prison?
Is it not a fact that the Mr. Kelly referred to was twice interned and that he is married to Alish McDermott, whose brother was shot dead by the RUC—
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As an inquiry has been announced, which we welcome, and presumably as criminal proceedings will take place against certain accused who have been mentioned in my right hon. Friend's statement, should not we in the House be extremely careful about what we say about individuals and their records? I do not know how the sub judice rule applies in this case, but should we not be very careful?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We must always be careful. However, the Secretary of State has made a statement, and, having heard it, the House is entitled to ask the most thorough questions of the Secretary of State.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm or otherwise that the wife of that solicitor is Alish McDermott whose brother planted a bomb in the Conway hotel and was shot dead by the RUC? Will he also confirm—
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was not the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) justified in raising his point of order? Surely it only prejudices matters if names are used in the House in this way. The Secretary of State has not mentioned names, nor have we. Surely no other hon. Member should be entitled to mention names. I should have thought that the appeal made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest would have the support of the whole House.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may think so, but the Secretary of State referred to solicitors. All that he omitted was their names. He said that two solicitors had been arrested, but he did not give their names. I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not want to prejudice the inquiry any more than any other hon. Member would want to do so. I hope that he will now bring his question to a conclusion.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall comment no further on that matter, but I must place on record the fact that the people of Northern Ireland think it very unlikely that the Taoiseach of the Republic will want to help us, as the brother of this solicitor is one of his election agents who has appeared on television with him night after night. It is right that the House should know these facts, because they concern the people of Northern Ireland.
I have twice served in the prison and know a little about it. I visit it regularly to conduct services, and it is a fact that solicitors, clergymen and doctors are not searched when going into the prison. Those are the facts and the right hon. Gentleman must be pressed on them. Will the House have an opportunity to debate the report of the inquiry?
Mr. Atkins: I undertake to keep the House informed of the results of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that priests and solicitors are not searched. They should be. However, the inquiry will direct itself precisely to that sort of point.
I shall not pursue what the hon. Gentleman said about those who have been arrested. The only thing that matters to the police, and I am sure to the House, is whether any arrested person is believed to have committed an offence. That person's family and relations have nothing to do with it. If he is believed to have committed an offence, he will be brought to trial—and so he should be—regardless of anything that his family may or may not have done in the past.
The cubicles which are part of the visiting area are located on the ground floor.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions to run until 4.30 pm, when we shall proceed to the Supply day business.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there seems to have been a great deal of expert planning surrounding this escape? It is essential that search procedures should be inquired into in the greatest detail. Does he also recall, as I do, the circumstances in which the murders with which these men were charged took place, particularly the brutal murder of Captain Westmacott, which occurred near my home? When those charged with his murder were surrounded,

559
they acted in a cowardly way and sent for a Catholic priest to get them out in case they met the same fate as that visited upon Captain Westmacott.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in the past such people in Northern Ireland have escaped from custody? A certain amount of glamour was attached to those escapes, like the glamour attached to the great train robbers. However, when those men went to the Republic they proceeded to murder Irish policemen and were subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. Therefore, in no circumstances should anyone attempt to glamourise this escape, because there was nothing courageous about it.
Mr. Atkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no glamour about murder. I am not yet able to say whether these prisoners were guilty of the murder of Captain Westmacott. The judge will rule on that tomorrow and we shall see. However, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this escape was carefully planned and, unfortunately, well carried out.
It is the business of the prison service, under my direction, to prevent such things from happening, but on this occasion it did not. We must prevent its happening again, and that is why I set up the inquiry immediately. When people are arrested and brought to trial, they must be kept in safe custody until the end of that trial. If they are found not guilty they go free, but otherwise they must be kept in safe custody. We did not do it this time, but we must do it in future.
Mr. David Crouch: I am concerned about my right hon. Friend's statement. One does not need to be a regular speaker on Northern Ireland affairs to be concerned about a mass escape of desperate men, which seems to have been planned like a military operation. My right hon. Friend hinted at that. We shall seek an assurance, following the inquiry, that in future the safeguards against such a military operation succeeding and allowing eight men to escape will be extremely watertight and secure.
I suggest that the inquiry should consider the possibility that in this prison, if not in all prisons in the United Kingdom, special equipment should be available to prison officers, such as electronic alarm equipment carried on their persons, to enable them to alert other members of the prison service that they are under attack or in danger of being overwhelmed.
Mr. Atkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. We thought that the arrangements at the Crumlin Road prison, which is the only remand prison in Northern Ireland, were adequate. They have proved not to be. We must take steps to ensure that they are, which is why I am glad to have the expert advice of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Mr. James A. Dunn: I join those hon. Members who have expressed regret and sent best wishes to those who have been injured.
I also express anxiety and concern at the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We have been told that two solicitors and a solicitor's clerk have been arrested, but we have not been informed whether any charge has been made against them. This is most unusual. If any statement were made to the House in similar circumstances about any other part of the United Kingdom, reference would be made to the fact that further inquiries were being
560
made and that some people were being detained, without indicating who they were. Anything untoward that might happen in this House rests on the language of the statement that was given.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will remember, from his time in Northern Ireland, that when persons are detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Emergency Provisions Act their names are not kept secret. The fact that they have been arrested is not kept secret. Of course it is known that persons have been arrested, because they have a right of access to their solicitors. It seemed to me to be right, therefore, to tell the House that five persons are being held under the terms of the appropriate Act. I cannot yet tell the House whether there will be charges, but I hope that charges will be preferred.
Mr. Peter Robinson: In his statement the Secretary of State said that the alarm was raised at the main gate. Is it not a fact that the alarm was raised by three ladies who walked in off the street through the outer gate and then through the inner gate to the office where two prison officers were seated? At no time before they reached the two officers did they see any other prison officer. Is it not also a fact that there is a swivel camera which is manned on a 24-hour basis? Will the Secretary of State say what report was made by the person who manned the camera?
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most unusual that prisoners whose case has already been heard, and who are waiting for the verdict, should have an in-depth consultation with their solicitors at such a time?
Mr. Atkins: When prisoners are before the courts they are entitled during the course of their trial—the trial has not yet finished, because judgment has not yet been delivered in this matter and see their solicitors. I do not think that the House would feel it right to deny access to solicitors to people appearing before the courts.
As to the other details of precisely what happened and the movements of the escaping prisoners, that is precisely what I want the Chief Inspector of Prisons to study—to find out what went wrong, because undeniably something went wrong.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware of the high regard that my colleagues and I on the Liberal Benches have for the prison officers and prison governors in Northern Ireland? They have done a superb and very brave job in recent years. Does not the escape illustrate the impossible position in which we put people who are charged to maintain security in our prisons, when we advocate further concessions in places such as the Maze?
Mr. Atkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He said "when we advocate further concessions". I do not think that he is advocating them and I certainly am not. I agree that the prison officers have a peculiarly difficult and dangerous job to do in Northern Ireland. They do it in an exemplary fashion and they earn and should have the gratitude of the whole House.
Mr. Wm. Ross: Are not the locks and gates of the prison controlled from a secure vantage point and if not, why not? That is standard practice in commercial and other premises in Northern Ireland.

561
What is the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he believes that if the prisoners should make their way into the Republic they will be returned?
Mr. Atkins: The precise details of how the escaping prisoners were able to force the prison officers on duty at the gates to open those gates will be a matter for the inquiry which is now under way. The fact is that the prisoners were able to force those in charge of the gates to open them because the prisoners were armed. As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, prison officers, for obvious reasons, are not armed.
I do not know where the escaped prisoners are at the moment, but I hope and believe that they will be brought back to Belfast to hear the result of their trial and to stand trial for any further offences that they have committed.
Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the widespread statements made by Republicans over a long period that Republicans have carried items in to prisoners in the Maze prison and into Crumlin Road prison, surely the Government are at fault if they have not acted to stop that carriage of messages, and articles such as drugs, into prisons, and the passing of messages from prisoners out of the prisons. Can the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that henceforth all people will be thoroughly searched and that the authorities will install a metal detector—such as we have at the entrance to this House—which would have detected any gun being smuggled into the prison?
Mr. Atkins: The procedures in force at Crumlin Road prison in Belfast, and indeed at all other prisons in Northern Ireland, are designed to prevent people from bringing in arms to the prisoners. We had thought that the procedures were adequate, but clearly they were not, because those arms were brought in. As the hon. Gentleman fairly says, this was a failure on the part of the authorities, for which I am responsible. My immediate concern is to find out what went wrong and to take whatever steps are necessary to stop it happening again.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about setting up the inquiry. Is he aware how shocked a number of people have been that this incident, in a public place where terrorists are held, should follow so soon after the incident at the Royal Victoria hospital, where a police constable was brutally murdered by terrorists who got in as a result of lax security? In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend think that there is a case for setting up an inquiry into the security at all public buildings housing terrorists?
Mr. Atkins: I regret very much the murder of the police officer on duty at the Royal Victoria hospital the other day, but I must take issue with my hon. Friend on one point. I do not think that Her Majesty's prison at Crumlin Road, Belfast, is a public place within the meaning of the Act, whereas the Royal Victoria hospital is a place which is used and visited by people who are not in custody. The two places are very different. The purpose of the inquiry which I have announced to the House today is to ensure that people who are being properly held in custody and who are before the courts are not allowed to escape in the way that these people escaped.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House will share his support of and kind words to the prison officers? As the incident may raise in the minds of some people the suspicion that one or more of those officers might have been involved in the break-out, may we be assured that the inquiry will also address itself to that aspect, not only to identify any prison officer, if such should prove to be the case, but, equally important, to defend the integrity of the prison officers and to indicate to people at large what a fine job the prison officers continue to do in difficult circumstances?
Mr. Atkins: The inquiry will, of course, direct itself to those matters. There is no indication whatever, and no suspicion in my mind, that the prison officers did anything other than the best they could to discharge their duties. As I told the House earlier, one of them, in the effort to discharge his duties to the best of his ability, suffered severe injuries and may have a fractured skull. I hope, and the whole House will hope, that he will soon recover. All the circumstances of this unhappy event will be properly investigated by the inquiry.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Clearly it is a matter of major and distressing importance that seven persons of the eight who escaped had been charged with murdering other human beings. It is clear that an inquiry is essential, but will the Minister make it clear to the authorities in Northern Ireland that there is a world of difference between arrest and charge? Until we know about the sub judice rule, and so that there is no trial by newspaper, does the Secretary of State agree that the authorities should, if they intend to bring charges, bring them as quickly as possible so that everyone may know what the position is? Otherwise, damage could be done to innocent persons.
Mr. Atkins: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it is the objective of the police to charge people as soon as they possibly can. But the House has in the past renewed—and I hope will again renew—the emergency powers which enable the police, in these exceptionally difficult circumstances, to hold people for longer than is the norm in the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course the police will wish to charge those held by them as soon as they can.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) covered ground that we covered earlier. Otherwise, there is freedom of speech in this House.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the most modern electronic arms screening technology is available in this prison and to the prison service in Northern Ireland as a whole?
Mr. Atkins: The Government's position is that whatever is needed to secure the persons of those held in custody will be made available to the prison service. The most efficient equipment may go wrong. I do not know whether it did in this case. It may be that more and better equipment is required. This is what Her Majesty's inspector will advise me about. Whatever it is necessary to provide to keep in custody people charged with serious offences such as those with which these people were charged will be provided by the Government.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have sat through all the exchanges, and I should like to refer to some statements made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), about which points of order were raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
It is right to say, Mr. Speaker, that you have to defend free speech in the House. Equally, we have a heavy burden upon us when we mention names and make allegations or suggestions and suppositions. May I suggest to you that when matters of the gravity mentioned here are raised, when an hon. Member names people who have suffered enough in the tragedies in Northern Ireland, who are not in a position to defend themselves and who are being put in a position of guilt by association or smear, a heavy duty rests not only upon the hon. Member who raises the matter but upon the Chair to try to cut short discussion of those matters. May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with due humility, that this is a matter that should be considered seriously by you and your officers and, if necessary, referred to the appropriate Committee of the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to act as a censor of what hon. Members say in the House. They take responsibility for the statements that they make. The Secretary of State made it clear in his statement, to which I listened with care—indeed, I was reading it as he made it—that he referred to no charge having been made, or the matter would have been sub judice. This is not the first time that charges have been made against people outside the House. Members, not only in this Parliament but through the ages, have insisted on their right to make statements which they believe to be true. The hon. Gentleman who made the statement must take responsibility for it.
Mr. McNamara: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but, with due respect to the Chair, those named were not the solicitors involved, but relatives of the solicitors and other people—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is well within the right of any hon. Member to make the sort of statement that was made when there is not a case before a court. If there were a case before a court, it would be entirely different. It is not for me to say—the House would soon resent it if I did—that hon. Members should not make statements like that because I do not happen to believe that they are fair or true. The hon. Member is responsible himself for the statement.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to seem to be persisting in this matter. I am not denying your right, Mr. Speaker,
564
to protect free speech in the House, nor to point out the responsibility of hon. Members. What I was suggesting to you was that the matter might be looked at because it is affecting third parties.
There is a further point that we might have to look at in view of the change in the Prevention of Terrorism Act and other legislation. I refer to the distinction between a person being arrested and charged and a person being detained for a period of up to 72 hours. This is a grey area about which we are seriously concerned. Again, it is something which should perhaps be looked at by the proper authorities.
Mr. Speaker: It is a grey area, and of course I will look at it. I must remind the hon. Member that within this Parliament we have had examples of people outside the House having been named. It has happened on both sides of the House. There have been criticisms in the press and within the House. Every Speaker throughout my time in the House and long before has insisted on the right of hon. Members in the House, where we have privilege, to accept responsibility for what they say.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that this matter was not raised first by me? It was the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) who raised the matter about the relations, and that was allowed. Therefore, I took it that I was in order in proceeding along that line. Let me also emphasise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that it is important to note—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order must be addressed to me and not to the hon. Member who raised the question.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I did not make any charge. I made a statement of fact which is common knowledge in Northern Ireland. We are not living in an isolated world, like the hon. Member. We are living with the facts of the case, and everybody knows that.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981.

2. Animal Health Act 1981.

3. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981.

4. Sion College Act 1981.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [19th Allotted Day]—considered

  Women's Rights
  4.36 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the deliberate attacks of Her Majesty's Government on the status and opportunities of women which have undermined advances such as paid maternity leave and protection from dismissal because of pregnany; deplores the restrictive decisions on the payment of social security benefit; further condemns Her Majesty's Government for its cuts in local authority finance, particularly for the social services and the provision of child care facilities and adequate school meals; condemns the divisive effects of immigration rules which discriminate against British women who wish to be joined by foreign husbands or financés; demands recognition of a woman's right to work and condemns Government economic policies which have deprived women of jobs at an even faster rate than men; pledges its support for positive policies towards equality, including improved education and training programmes; considers that the attacks on the National Health Service have directly and adversely affected women, from ante-natal to geriatric care, and demands the provision of proper health facilities such as cervical screening and birth control and abortion clinics; and calls for radical changes to improve Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts so as to promote genuine equal opportunities and fair remuneration, and for the removal of all forms of discrimination in taxation and pay, thus enabling women to play their full part in society.
  The attitude of the Government to women may be best summed up by quoting Alexander Dumas, fils. He said:
  "According to the Bible, woman was the last thing God made. It must have been a Saturday night. Clearly he was tired."
  If hon. Members think I am exaggerating, perhaps I might quote no less an authority than the Secretary of State for Social Services. His attitude, as given in an interview on television, was even simpler. He said:
  "Quite frankly, I do not think mothers have the same right to work as fathers. If the good Lord had intended us to have equal rights to go out to work and behave equally, he really would not have created men and women. These are biological facts."
  I am always delighted to know that the Government are catching up on fact, but, unfortunately, that is a demonstration of an attitude of mind.
  Politicians are occasionally accused of wanting to change the whole surface of the earth and not being able to do so. It is astonishing how much the Government have managed to change the rights and status of women in a short period. It is essential to understand the extent of the changes that have taken place. The Government seem to have created the impression that the female of the species has benefited excessively from past legislation and now must be ready to relearn her place in society.
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: What about the Prime Minister?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad the hon. Lady has intervened so rapidly. It is ironic that it should be the first Government headed by a woman who have done so much to damage the place of women in the community. From the sexist attitudes regularly applied to the Prime Minister we can only assume that she is a demonstration of all that Conservative politicians hate most.
  What is frightening about what has happened in the past two years is that women have been told in effect that they
  566
  must not expect to be treated as equals either at work or in the home. They must not expect assistance to protect themselves from exploitation.
  Indeed, the Government seem to think that even elementary rights, such as the right to proper health care, a good education or training for work are not genuine rights but almost a wicked attempt on the part of the female of the species to waste Government resources. Rather than seeking to increase public expenditure in this manner, the Government seem to say that women should realise that their true role is to provide the unpaid, unsupported and unregarded work force which fills the gaps created by the cuts in the social serrvices.
  If a local authority cuts its home help sevice, the Government seem to say that individual females will just have to cope—and for "female" please read "mother, sister, daughter". If there is not enough sheltered housing for the elderly being built, the immediate family circle must find a way of coping with the aged parent. If there are not sufficient places in nursery schools for the under-fives, because the Government have cut back on local authority expenditure, the working mother must be made to realise that this is the penalty she has to pay for daring to seek employment outside the home.
  The Government's policy is a reflection of the philosophy which regards women as inferior, and working women as most inferior of all. Socrates said that once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior. I can only assume that that is the basis of much of the legislation that has been introduced by the Government.
  The situation of women in Conservative Britain is very uncomfortable. In the past two years women have suffered disproportionately from the effects of the economic recession. Many work in low-paid jobs and are largely employed by industries which are most under attack—textiles, shoe making and the distributive trades, which suffer first when the economy contracts.
  In the new, thrusting, affluent, Conservative Britain, the Low Pay Unit has given figures showing that most women still work for appallingly low rates of pay. In April 1980 almost 4 million adult workers worked a full week plus overtime and still earned no more than £75 for a standard working week of 40 hours. Of those, 2.6 million, or 65 per cent., were women. Since 1976, women's rates of pay relative to those of men have deteriorated, so that women's earnings have remained frozen at 73 per cent. of the pay of men, and nothing has been changed by the Government. Women provide the bulk of part-time workers, and as soon as there are problems of any sort they are among the first to be declared redundant.
  The difficulties of the home worker are even better documented. Many home workers work under dreadful conditions. They work long hours and receive less than 50p an hour. The changes in the national insurance contributions have encouraged employers to freeze the wages of part-time workers at a low level. If a worker who receives £26.50 per week is given a rise of £1, both the employee and the employer come within the scope of increased national insurance contributions. Inevitably, the employer seeks to restrict his women workers to low wage rates, and again the woman suffers most.
  In April 1980, one in 10 full-time women workers earned less than £50 a week; 28 per cent. earned less than £60 a week and 38 per cent. earned less than £78 a week.

  567
  The comparative figures for male workers in those three categories were 1 per cent., 2 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively.
  Irrespective of what the Conservative Government would like to imply, modern Britain is not made up of families in which the male is automatically the largest wage earner. In 1978 there were 825,000 one-parent families, and 725,000 of those were headed by the mother. The calm assumption that the woman's contribution to the household income is pin money that can be discounted is outdated, but revealing when elevated to the status of a policy.
  A woman's wage is now a vital part of every household budget, and the impact of Conservative economic measures has made that even clearer. The Government, however, refuse to accept the part played by women workers. Amendments made by the Government to employment legislation have lowered the protection available to working women, made it more difficult for women to return to work after childbirth and lowered their entitlement to fair treatment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), whom I am glad to see in the Chamber, explained the thinking behind this change. She said on one occasion that perhaps in years to come "the country" would look at the labour market and decide that perhaps it would be better for women with children to stay at home. She did not say that the woman and her family would think it better, or even possible, for her to stay at home given the present economic restraints, but that the country would think it better.
  I am not alone in suspecting that this means that in a shrinking jobs market the Government have deliberately decided to squeeze women out of the work force. Presumably, when there are stresses in the labour market, the easiest group of workers for the Government to have a go at are those who are not as heavily unionised and who, more often than not, work in low-paid jobs—the women.
  The number of women who register as unemployed shows that the Government may be succeeding in their aim. There are more women without work now than there have been since May 1979. The number of women registered as unemployed is 704,200—double the number in 1979. The figure under-represents the number of women who are seeking jobs. We all know that in our constituencies many women do not register as unemployed because they have not been paying the full insurance contribution; therefore, although they are anxious to go back to work, they do not register.
  In January 1976 women were 22 per cent. of the registered unemployed; by January 1981 they were 29 per cent. This is the woman, the mother figure, that the Conservative Government eternally hold up to us as the cornerstone of the family. Conservative mythology says in effect that we should be concerned above all with the woman and the family. But how have the Conservative Government treated women?
  It is the woman who is most affected when local authority services are cut back. It is the woman who, if the aged parent cannot be found sheltered housing or be moved into suitable accommodation, is expected to support that aged person irrespective of other calls upon her time. If she wishes to return to work, or even if she believes it is in the interests of her under-five child that he
  568
  should go to nursery school, when those facilities are not available, because they have been so drastically cut back, she is the one who has to find an alternative.
  When any problem arises with the home help, social or educational services, it is the woman of the family who is expected to step into the breach, yet by assisting the woman we assist the entire family.
  The Black report has not been debated in the House. The Secretary of State seemed to imply that it needed more examination because the facts and figures were not available. The report states that poverty has a direct correlation to the health of the family. It spells out that a person born into social classes 4 and 5 is two and a half times more likely to die early, receives worse ante-natal care, worse care as a child and worse care at school-leaving age, and that when that person starts a family exactly the same disadvantages will arise for that family.
  Despite all that, the Government have not been prepared to put greater resources into health care; instead, they have cut existing services. Although we hear a great deal about growth in the health services, the decision to move towards cash limits can lead only to a positive rundown in the available facilities. How does that affect women?
  Under the Government's aegis, far fewer facilities are available to women in all types of health care. Fewer clinics are available to them for cervical cytology. Although the Minister has given his warm support to the need for more services, it is an empty suggestion if there is no finance to back it up. Those health authorities that felt that they were providing sufficient day-care abortion facilities have not been able to open new units, because the money has not been available.
  In many instances the number of clinics has been cut. Before the Conservative Party took office, 50 per cent. of abortions were carried out in the National Health Service. That figure is now 46 per cent. In other words, we are rapidly returning to a situation in which women are forced into the private sector for such treatment. Inevitably, that will mean the development of a two-tier service in which those who have the money can get what they want and those who rely on the National Health Service are badly treated.
  The Government have not restricted their activities to destroying existing services. They have taken positive steps, in a number of ways, to change the situation of women. The last Budget not only widened, but deepened the poverty trap and caught more families in it. It made things more difficult for low-paid families and increased their tax burden. Inevitably, that must have an effect not only upon the woman but upon the child.
  The Budget changes, which stemmed from a refusal to implement the Rooker-Wise amendment, meant that a whole new group of women were caught within the tax law. In future, women aged between 60 and 65, who are divorced, widowed or single will have to pay tax even if they do not have any income other than the State benefit. That, from a Government who persistently tell us that they value women for their important place in society! The reality is that both by legislation and by deliberate policy decisions the Government are making more intolerable for women the undoubted stresses of the 1980s.
  I hope that the Government will tell us that they intend to put a considerable amount of money at the disposal of the health care services and the social services in general, but that is exceedingly unlikely. Unfortunately, the

  569
  evidence is to the contrary. Whether in employment legislation, finance, or taxation changes, the woman has been positively penalised.
  The Government were not content with that. Under the Labour Government it was decided that, as a concession—I was not satisfied with the use of the word "concession"—women should have the same rights as their male equivalents in relation to nationality and to the admission of foreign fiancés to Britain.
  The Conservative Party came to power on a marvellously ambivalent manifesto, which seemed to say at one and the same time that it would treat everyone equally before the law but that it would treat women less equally than anyone else. The British Nationality Bill removed the concession and made it twice as difficult for women to enjoy the same status as men.
  That status is enjoyed not by concession but by legislation. Women—whether they are born in Britain or, even more importantly, are Britons working abroad—will face problems unless they fall within one or two of the special categories that can be protected by the Home Secretary's word. I do not believe in protection before the law that relies entirely on the Home Secretary's attitude. If the House was representative of the population, women would enjoy those rights without having to ask for them. They would have them enshrined in legislation.
  In effect the Government are saying that there is an inferior class of nationals in Britain and that, unfortunately, most of them are women. The Government are carrying out a policy that can be seen only as plainly divisive. It is worse than that, because it particularly attacks those in the migrant population who were born here but who may have relatives overseas. There are real dangers in the proposition that is being put forward.
  The Government have taken legislative measures to lower the status of women, to reduce their protection and to change the opportunities open to them. Over two years they have consistently done that. Sometimes they have done so by administrative means, but more often they have directly attacked the role of women in society.
  We should have reached a stage at which women are accepted as the equals of men in every sense of the word. I do not mean that they should be eternally and stridently asking for "women's lib", but they should have the rights that men enjoy. For example, in this House they should have the right to be mediocre. I do not wish to be unkind, but we shall have equality in the House only when there are as many female Members of Parliament as there are male and when they represent a cross-section of the population.
  The Labour Party has made a positive effort to ensure that there are female candidates. Perhaps we could do with a little positive discrimination. We shall certainly not get that from a Government headed by a female Prime Minister.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the hon. Lady accept that the most effective and practical way of improving the number of female Members of Parliament would be by introducing an appropriate system of proportional representation?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That would probably be the worst way of changing anything in the House, particularly the role of women. If a system of proportional representation
  570
  were adopted it would lead only to a morass of indecision that would make even the Social Democratic Party look decisive.
  It is obvious that the Government's policy can lead only to considerable stresses and strains. I have always been impressed by my daughter's generation. That generation does not feel any need to explain, stridently defend or put forward a case for its own sexuality, intelligence or role in the world. Perhaps it has more backbone than my generation. Members of my daughter's generation have great intelligence and faith in the future. They will be best served if we change the Government as rapidly as possible.
  In the interim, the responsibility falls on a Government headed by a woman to improve the conditions of females and to end the attacks on them at work, at home, in schools, and in the health care services. Perhaps that is too much to hope for. Perhaps we shall not see the dawning of that great day. If so, I hope that the next general election will, for all our sakes, come as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I should announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  5 pm
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs Sally Oppenheim): I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'this House, recognising that the needs and aspirations of women can only be achieved within a free and fair society and a healthy economy, welcomes the measures which the Government has taken to achieve these.'.
  The motion chosen by the Opposition for a full Supply day debate has demonstrated, in its spurious and inappropriate attack on the Government, two things above all else; first, how hard up they are for ammunition to direct against the Government, and secondly, how few issues there are left on which they can present a united front.
  It is also worth noting the paradox that two weeks ago there was a Conservative women's conference nearby, which debated serious working party papers on all aspects of the present and future of women and employment—debates that were highly commended even in such newspapers as The Guardian—while this week we have had a Labour Party women's demonstration about women and unemployment, the two being perfectly contrasting examples of the constructive as against the destructive approach.
  I welcome a full day's debate on this issue. What I regret and deplore are the terms of the motion. If there are two things that are certain to undermine the progress towards a fairer society for women, for which many of us have striven, inside and outside Parliament, for years, the first is the more extravagant proposals of the extreme fringe elements of the womens' liberation movement and the second is the equally damaging attempt to politicise the issue, as the motion does today.
  It is an issue of great importance. Over the past two or three decades, any debates on this subject that have taken place in the House have done so in an atmosphere of constructive and non-party political debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes they have.
  Today's debate represents a wholly unwelcome and destructive departure from that tradition. I totally reject the charge made by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs.

  571
  Dunwoody) that the Government's policies have undermined the status, rights and opportunities for women. The facts refute that.
  To criticise, for undermining the status of women, a Government who have as their head a woman who has done more by her example, her achievements and her leadership to elevate the status of women in the eyes of the world, than 100 years of Government legislation and womens' lib demonstrations could have done, is bizarre in the extreme.
  The motion refers to the rights of women. The Government, unlike the Opposition, are dedicated to the rights and freedoms of the individual, to freedom of choice and equal opportunities—a cause espoused by the Opposition only on a highly selective basis when it suits them.
  The motion refers to opportunities for women. Despite a world recession, a difficult economic climate and high unemployment, in December last year there were more women in employment in this country than there were in 1974, and 1 million more than there were in 1964. So women represent a significant proportion of the total work force.
  Moreover, the contribution that women's earnings make to family income as a percentage of the total family income has doubled in recent years, and average contributions by women to the family income is continuing to rise—
  Mrs. Renée Short: It is still below the rate for men.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: —while the proportion of women unemployed, as a percentage of the total unemployed, has fallen over the past year which is encouraging [Interruption.] Go ahead and cheer. At the same time, the percentage of women unemployed, as a proportion of the total unemployed, is the second lowest in Europe. That is another thing that we can applaud.
  Eighty-five per cent. of all part-time jobs are filled by women. The part-time job is a vital social necessity for a great many women. I shall have more to say about that later. Eighty per cent. of part-time women workers are over 35, many having returned to work after marriage and bringing up young childen. The consolidation by the Government of the WOW—the wider opportunities for women scheme—has helped a significant number of women returning to work to retrain and readjust.
  The three phases, not of this Government's but the Labour Government's, pay policy—the final phases concentrating as they did on percentage additions to incomes—forced pay differentials between men and women apart. While figures published by the EOC annual report yesterday show that last year, under this Government women's earnings as a proportion of men's has started to rise again. I do not accept the assumption in the report that that will not necessarily continue to improve. It is interesting to note that women's earnings as a proportion of men's is much higher here than in the United States where there is a battery of legislation.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Minister referred to the Labour Government's pay policy, which I consistently voted against, why are the Government, who were elected To change that, keeping the nurses down to a rigid 6 per cent. pay policy? The majority of nurses are women, although there are a few men. Will the right hon.
  572
  Lady use this opportunity to make it clear that the Government are not talking about the status of women in general? Will she make a statement to the effect that the Government will support the women workers in the Lee Jeans factory in Greenock, who are fighting for their jobs? Instead of waffling on about general matters, let us hear something specific—that the nurses will receive an increase in wages consistent with the rise in inflation and that the right hon. Lady will see to it that those women, young and old, at Greenock will keep their jobs.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: If the debate is notable for one thing, it is the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the cause of women. This is the first occasion on which I have heard him make any—
  Mr. Skinner: I am married to one.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I thought that the hon. Gentleman made that sedentary observation with a note of regret in his voice.
  Mr. Skinner: I have two daughters as well.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I have two daughters,, and a grand-daughter.
  Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Lady mentioned the EOC report. I think that she should get the figures correct. Is she aware that, according to the EOC report, women's earnings as a percentage of men's this year were 73·5 per cent.? At the time of the election in 1979 the figure was 73 per cent. The Government have managed to increase it by ½ per cent. In 1978 it was 73·9 per cent., so it has decreased since 1978 under the Conservative Government.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady is correct. It did decrease, but it has increased since 1979. The important point is that the trend is rising at a time of difficult economic circumstances.
  I return now to the educational opportunities and facilities under this Government.
  At one end of the scale, contrary to what the hon. Member for Crewe says, the number of children in nursery schools and centres has risen, not declined, over the past two years. At the other end of the educational scale, the number of girls applying for university places last year exceeded the number of boys. In fact, over the past two years the number of places at universities and other places of higher education for girls has increased substantially. The percentage of women attending both places of higher education and advanced higher education has also increased over the past two years.
  Much more importantly, to encourage the interests and achievements of girls in subjects that have traditionally either been discouraged or been something of a male preserve, in which girls have not hitherto taken sufficient interest, the Department of Education and Science recently published a discussion document entitled "A framework for the school curriculum", which examines the possibility of a core curriculum specifically aimed at encouraging and enabling girls to follow a curriculum that will fit them for a much wider choice of career. That represents a vital contribution to the objective of encouraging girls to be more ambitious in their choice of career—a subject to which I shall also return later.
  On the subject of training, an excellent working paper survey presented at the Conservative Women's annual conference by the Wessex area has shown that under this Government industry as a whole, the retail trade, the hotel

  573
  and catering industry and local government have provided equal training opportunities for women, although—I shall deal with this matter in more detail later—women do not yet appear to be taking advantage of the opportunities higher up the scale. Notwithstanding this development, a recent EEC report shows that a greater proportion of women are to be found in administration and management in Great Britain than in any other country in the EEC.
  The motion before the House attacks the Government's record on the cost of school meals.
  Mr. Skinner: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says "Hear, hear". I have to admit that the price of school meals has been raised twice under the Government by a total of 40 per cent., 20 per cent. of which was an increase proposed and approved by the Labour Government, who, when in office, raised the price of school meals by no less than 108 per cent.
  The motion also refers to taxation. The Government have made taxation concessions, in particular to widows. War widows' pensions have been freed from income tax. We have given 30,000 pre-1950 Service men's widows a pension to which they were not previously entitled. Widows will also receive extra tax allowance in the first year of their bereavement.
  The Government are particularly concerned about the tax of married women. A Green Paper "The Taxation of Husband and Wife" was published in December last year. It examines ways to improve the tax status of married women.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: It puts forward for discussion major options for change, such as the ability to choose individual taxation, with an equal division of reliefs and allowances. Personal disposable incomes have risen in real terms by 8·4 per cent. between 1979 and the end of 1980.
  All those facts and more—time will not permit me to give further detail—support the case that the Government, far from diminishing the status, opportunities and rights of women, have increased them and are continuing to increase them.
  Women, as consumers, have enjoyed over the last two years the first real "buyers'" market that we have known since the war. Competition for their custom has been extremely fierce, leading to lower prices, higher standards and better services. At the end of the day, it is the conquest of inflation that is an essential and fundamental prerequisite to the future of jobs and to the security and stability of jobs for men and women.
  Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Lady name one lower price?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman asks me to name one lower price. The rate of inflation has been coming down consistently. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from what I am sure are his frequent excursions into the high street, that a number of claims about lower prices are being made. I have faith in the discernment of the British consumer to evaluate whether prices are lower.
  574
  The fact is that they are being claimed. The competitive structure in the high street has become far keener and fiercer over the last two years.
  Mr. John Fraser rose—
  Mrs. Oppenheim: It would be unfair to Opposition Members, who are obviously keen and raring to go, if I were to extend my remarks beyond what would be an acceptable period of time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in winding up the debate, will deal with benefits and allowances for which her Department has responsibility. These present a significient improvement in the status of women. My hon. Friend will also reply to points raised on the British Nationality Bill.
  Having dealt with the Government's factual record—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members think that the Labour Government's factual record, in terms of achievements for women, measures up to the factual record that I have given for I come now to the wider issue of the creation of a fairer and freer society for women and to remove my discussion of this important subject from the political arena.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Keep politics out of Parliament.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I hope that my own credentials are well established. I was a sponsor and supporter of the two anti-discrimination Bills of 1972 and 1973 introduced by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
  Mr. William Hamilton: Keep my name out of your ruddy speech.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman invited my sponsorship and I was a supporter of both Bills. There was no division then and there is no division now between both sides of the House on the subject. Inequality of opportunity and discrimination existed then and exists now in a number of areas. However, some substantial progress has been made. There is no doubt that the adverse effects of these disadvantages affects certain categories of women much more severely than others. I refer to the mother in the one-parent family who has no choice but to go out to work, the single daughter with elderly dependents to maintain and those women who, on top of the emotional shock of divorce, of desertion and of becoming widows, often face a barrier of discrimination that will bring them face to face with frustration and financial hardship simply because they are women. For such women, the struggle is still very unequal. I am the first to acknowledge the fact.
  I acknowledge also that it would be wrong to pretend that opportunities for women in the range of jobs and careers available to men are anything like equal yet, or that in certain cases they ever will be equal. Considerable progress has been made, but the actuality of equal pay and equal opportunities is far from being fully realised. This debate provides a useful opportunity to discuss the question.
  I should like to make one thing clear. There is a limit to what any Government can or should do in improving the status, rights and opportunities for women. This is not a problem that arose in May 1979. It will not be solved quickly. Governments can, have, should and will continue to strive to ensure that women have equality under the law, equal educational and training opportunities and equal opportunities at work. Governments can create the right

  575
  climate for advancement and for a sound and prosperous economy. Governments can create the framework for a fairer society for women. However, no Act of Parliament will eliminate discrimination or change attitudes.
  One cannot prescribe attitudes by legislation. We have to look at the root causes before we can attempt to eliminate them. The two greatest stumbling blocks are still attitudes—the attitudes of women themselves and general prejudice. Until and unless women themselves are readier in larger numbers to compete and train for more ambitious jobs, this problem will not be solved. Anyone who professes to be genuinely concerned about the social position of women should be informed first and foremost about these attitudes, which prevent women from responding fully to the changing employment demands of society.
  I should like to deal first, in this context, with the important question of the attitude of women in education. Here, old attitudes die very hard. Evidence shows that arts orientated curricula still prevail in most girls' schools. To paraphrase the recent words of my noble Friend Baroness Young, all those responsible for our education service have to make sure that new jobs do not become just jobs for the boys. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a great tribute to my noble Friend for all that she has done in this sphere in her Department and in her capacity as vice-chairman of our party responsible for women's organisations in the party.
  However, all the equal educational opportunities in the world will mean far less than they should unless we can persuade young girls and women to make use of new opportunities, and unless we can arouse their interest in them. That, of course, is where the core curriculum comes in. All too often in the past their interest in subjects, skills or careers that have hitherto been attainable only after surmounting daunting obstacles, has, instead of being stimulated, actually been sedated both at home and at school.
  It is the attitude of women themselves that present one of the greatest barriers to advance. The other great barrier is prejudice, which in the case of prejudice against women, unlike racial or religious discrimination, is not sinister or malevolent. Nor is it motivated by hatred or fear. It is founded on custom, ignorance, lack of confidence and sheer indifference, often expressed in the very unquestioning attitudes of women themselves.
  The reshaping of those attitudes is one of the most important problems that we face.
  Fortunately, for the most part, discriminatory attitudes against women are not so intransigent as to be totally unresponsive to education, to reason and, above all, to example. Indeed, time and again, even in the case of the most confirmed male chauvinist, these are swept aside in a moment by a woman with sufficient and outstanding abilities. In other words, the more women that are seen to be successfully fulfilling those roles that women are so often denied, the easier it will be not only to overcome prejudice and discrimination but to encourage girls and women to aim for these objectives in their own careers. That is the main problem that we face.
  Apparently, another major factor—it does not stem from Government legislation or from anything that has happened under previous Governments or under this Government; it is a fact of life—is that a great many men still wish to maintain the status quo. They feel threatened by any advance or encroachment on their preserves, and
  576
  they are fearful that services that they have depended on women to provide them with throughout the centuries will be withdrawn. They are right, although I believe that they need gentle encouragement, rather than open warfare, to wean them away from these attitudes.
  Perhaps Freud and early psychoanalyists played their part in reinforcing prejudiced attitudes. As Dame Rebecca West once said
  "Thanks to Freud the whole of the United States is covered with millions of grown men grizzling about the way they were treated by their mothers."
  There is evidence, too, in Sheila Rowbottom's book "Women, Resistance and Revolution" that the traditional figures of revolution, Rousseau, Robespierre, Karl Marx, Lenin and others were no great emancipators of women and were themselves chauvinist. They left their wives slaving over a hot stove—or had the lowest opinion of womanhood. The fact is that, like most men, these revolutionaries did not fancy forfeiting home comforts, and it suited them to have the dinner on the table when they came back from making their revolutions.
  Happily, everywhere, except apparently in the Labour Party itself, we have advanced considerably since those days, and more and more women have been reshaping attitudes by their example, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister intend to relate any of her remarks to 1981? Perhaps she will get around to some of the facts that we were talking about. The truth is that the Government have taken specific action against women, and we want her to answer some of the questions.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I spent a considerable time at the beginning of my speech dealing in a factual manner with the completely false assertions in the Opposition motion which the House is debating. I dealt with those matters in a factual way. I made it clear that, providing in the interests of greater opportunities for women, of raising the status of women and of increasing their rights, I wanted to take part of this debate outside the political arena. That is what I am attempting to do, and it is in the interests of progress in this sphere. I am dealing with the facts as they exist in the real world and not in the political mythology of the Labour Party.
  Where women need or want to work and use their talents and abilities to the full—here I agree with the hon. Lady—they must be given every opportunity and they should be given encouragement to be more ambitious in their choice of careers than they are at present. That—and here is the difference between the two parties—is the fundamental right of women—the right to choose.
  Now I should like to draw the attention of the House to what I believe is the essential equilibrium that must be maintained if we are to progress realistically towards the realisation of that aim. I shall also sound a note of caution.
  First, we should not in any way single out for derision those women who do not choose to go out to work, either part-time or full-time, or to pursue a career. Women who are fulfilled and happy in the role of housewife and mother, who often make considerable financial sacrifices in order to stay at home with their families, who do a tedious, demanding and lonely job, play a crucial role in the family and in society. To be a good housewife and mother is a high aspiration not easily achieved, and it is to be greatly commended.

  577
  I fully accept that a large number of women need and want full-time jobs. We must accept that an even larger number need and want part-time jobs. As I said earlier, the part-time job fills a vital niche in the social structure of the working woman, for a variety of reasons.
  In a few cases it is true that part-time work is done just for the extra pin money, but in many more cases part-time work carried out by women is embarked upon to top up an inadequate family income, and such women are able to do that with the help of a part-time job that enables them to spend crucial time with their young families. A number of such women that I know have two part-time jobs. They have one in the morning, when their children are at school. They come home in the afternoon to look after the children, and when their husbands return from work and take over family responsibility they do a second part-time job in the evening. So the continuing growth in the number of part-time jobs is very important. It is to be encouraged, and not denigrated or derided by Opposition Members.
  I have already referred to the adverse effects of extremist and unreasonable approaches to this issue, which often lend themselves to ridicule. We have long suffered from such denigratory descriptions as, for example, "the statutory woman". I noted with some alarm for the first time an Equal Opportunities Commission report this week that the "statutory woman" has now been joined by something called the "hypothetical male". The mind boggles at the thought of them ever meeting, and what they might produce if they did. Let us not allow this issue to lend itself to ridiculous jargon of that nature.
  I come now to a more controversial issue. Even well-intentioned measures, if inequitable, can do great harm. I refer here to those provisions of the Employment Protection Act repealed in the Employment Act 1980, to which the hon. Lady referred. There is no doubt that women's jobs in smaller firms were lost, not gained, as a result of those provisions. I make no apology for the repeal of that provision. I believe that in doing so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has in fact helped to preserve and create jobs for women in certain sectors that would otherwise have been destroyed.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: What are the facts?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The facts are the countless numbers of small businesses, not least in the tourist industry—our third largest exporting industry—which could not afford to employ women while those provisions were in force.
  It will have been noted that I have not often used the word "equality". That is because we should be cautious about how we apply the notion of equality to the elevation of women's status. There is a limit to the degree of equality, outside the specific spheres that I have mentioned, that we should consciously pursue in our own interests. There is a difference between equality and equality of opportunity.
  How much equality should we seek and how much should we sacrifice in gaining it? Some High Court rulings have demonstrated what is likely to happen to awards for maintenance when a wife earns much more than her husband or has independent means. That occurs in a minority of cases. The awards to widows are also sometimes much lower. How much are we prepared to sacrifice for perfect equality?
  578
  I firmly believe that one of the greatest services that we can do for our country is to encourage a hitherto untapped source of talent and potential in women, who are playing an increasingly important role in the nation's economic life and who have a valuable further contribution to make which we cannot afford to neglect, whether in Government or out.
  There are few pinnacles today that women, in ever increasing numbers, cannot reach. However, surely the final achievement in the elevation of the status of women will come only when nobody finds it remarkable that a women has scaled those heights.
  The Government, far from having anything to reproach themselves for, have not diminished the status of women, limited their opportunities or restricted their rights. On the contrary, by striving to overcome inflation and to create a sound and healthy economic basis from which to promote conditions that foster the creation of new jobs for men and women alike they are working not against, but towards the reinforcement of all three objectives.
  5.32 pm
  Dame Judith Hart: We have just heard the head girl of St. Swithin's. If we had such a position, I would probably be the "Mother of the House". I cannot rival my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) in his experience in the House. However, the Prime Minister and I became Members of the House on the same day in 1959. There were similarities and differences between us. We had children of the same age, but there was a profound difference in that she had a nanny and I had a granny.
  I shall trace the change in attitudes in the House, not only towards women, but of women. Since I entered the House there have been two profound changes. In 1959 the assumption was that a woman Member would wish to concern herself mainly with what were called women's subjects. We tended to concentrate on social security matters. At that time the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) was a Member. Social security, education and welfare were women's subjects.
  In 1959 my view, which was shared by Barbara Castle, who was then the Member for Blackburn, was that the next blow for freedom was to strike out into the spheres which were the absolute prerogatives of men—economics and foreign affairs.
  A big blow for freedom was struck when a former Prime Minister, Sir Harold Wilson, appointed the first woman Minister to the Foreign Office and the first woman Minister in an economic Ministry when he made Barbara Castle Minister of Transport. That was a big jump forward. That was in the 1960s.
  Since then a new emphasis has emerged. It was assumed that all would go well, that we would move forward, that there would be an end to discrimination and that opportunities would come the way of women. It was assumed that the provision of nursery schools and improved social services would help women in taking up employment and in seeking new opportunities. It was assumed that all would go well. The equal pay legislation was a dramatic step forward.
  In the last decade it was recognised that all that was not enough and that we would not achieve the liberation of women without attacking specific issues. Under any Government, and particularly under the present

  579
  Government, there must be specific campaigns for preschool education in nursery schools and playgroups. There must be a specific campaign on a matter which is of great interest to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—social security legislation and regulations as they affect women. I am thinking in particular of the appalling cohabitation rules, which reflect a Neanderthal attitude to the freedom, rights and equality of women. Specific campaigns on a range of specific issues are needed.
  What are the key priorities? Of course women must have freedom of choice. Whoever said that they should not? However, for freedom there must be opportunity. There is no freedom if the factory gates and the office doors are closed against women. With freedom must go opportunity. The vast increase in unemployment under the present Government has seriously limited further the opportunities of women in particular.
  The Minister mentioned some unemployment figures, but she did not refer to the 1 million women who do not appear on the unemployment registers. The numbers are increasing. Factories in my constituency have been closed, but the names of the majority or women who lost their jobs do not appear on the unemployment register.
  The Minister and the Government must accept that the disastrous de-industrialisation of Britain since they came to power has seriously affected the opportunities of employment for women. There is a world recession. OECD says that the Government have intensified rather than minimised the depression. Our position is worse than that of others, because of the Government's policies.
  Unemployment will always represent an attack on the opportunities for women. The concept of working towards full employment, difficult as that will be in the new technological age, must embrace the concept that employment for women is essential if we care about women as one element of the people. The right hon. Lady did not touch on the challenge that will face us because of new technology.
  The Labour Party produced a considered document about nine months ago which dealt with new technology and microelectronics. It pinpointed some of the problems that will arise for women simply because such a high proportion of them are in occupations that will be deeply affected by technological changes during the next 10 to 20 years. I had hoped that the Minister would touch on that matter.
  Another problem that needs to be emphasised is the issue of low pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the work of the Low Pay Unit. The Minister quoted from The Guardian. I wish to quote an excellent article from The Times, which summarises many of the facts that have been produced recently. It states:
  "55 per cent. of the female manual workers are in catering, cleaning, hairdressing and other personal services."
  Of the total number of people employed in those services, about 80 per cent. are women. In many cases women in such jobs have no comparability with the wages of men, because men do not work in those areas. Therefore, the equal pay legislation is not of any assistance. We must find some way to assist not only women but the many men who are in low-paid occupations.
  Many women in my constituency work in the catering industry. They do a split shift, working in the morning and
  580
  returning in the evening. They serve meals, cook and wash up. They are taking home about £35 per week. That is scandalous. Because men do not work side by side with them, the equal pay legislation does not help. We must build on the concept of equal pay and attack the problem of low pay—not only for women, but for men. That would be the greatest economic assistance that we could give to working women.
  I shall not go into any detail about the effects of the cuts in social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe mentioned them and I am sure that other hon. Members will do so. They bear most heavily on women who have to try to match the care of a home, a family, and possibly an elderly relative with work. They rely heavily on social service provisions, which they have a right to take for granted. Those provisions have been swept from under their feet by local authorities suffering the consequences of the cuts imposed on them by the Government.
  I wish to mention one specific point simply because it would be a pity to waste this opportunity to do so. The Minister might like to take up the point. I have corresponded with the Prime Minister about the matter, because it is directly within the Government's control. I cannot envisage any problems in putting it right. If any woman civil servant travels abroad, perhaps to a conference, and suffers an accident or is killed, she will have no compensation or award unless her husband is dependent upon her. If a male civil servant travels abroad and has an accident, his wife—whether or not she is dependent on him, and even if she is a full-time worker earning more than her husband—will receive compensation. I throw that point at the right hon. Lady, although the Prime Minister tossed it off in a rather uncaring manner.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Was not that point raised with Mrs. Barbara Castle when she introduced legislation? I know that it was raised by many women at that time. Precisely the same point relates to pensions in the House. Mrs. Castle deliberately excluded that from her legislation.
  Dame Judith Hart: That was a question of pensions in the House. I am referring to a point that came my way somewhat fortuitously when I was Minister for Overseas Development, when I realised the difference in treatment between women civil servants—including myself, as Ministers come into the same category—and male civil servants. I took up the matter with the Prime Minister about a year ago. She said that the Government could not do anything about it because it would lead to many consequential implications. Indeed it would—but those consequential implications need to be dealt with.
  I come now to the position of women in the House. Most of the ladies in the Chamber today have been spared the struggles that one or two of us had with all the tiny discriminations—for example, any communication that we received from the Serjeant at Arms automatically began "Dear Sir". We managed to smooth out of the way a number of minor irritations before some of our colleagues became Members.
  We are asked over and over again, especially as a result of the proliferation of research students—I hesitate to think of how many PhD papers are being written about women in politics—why there are not more women in the House. It is not an easy question to answer. Even if women do not experience discrimination against them in their political

  581
  life—I can honestly say that I never did, but many women do—how can they find the hours worked in the House compatible not only with looking after children and bringing up a family but simply with managing to co-exist in a marriage? To do so they need tremendous assistance from many people. We all know the rate of broken marriages in this place. I do not think that any of us can purport to be sincere in our intent to push away the constraints that stand in the way of women playing a full part in the politicial life of Britain until we are prepared to consider with seriousness and determination the nonsense of the way in which we run our affairs in the House.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Eve said to Adam as they were walking through the Garden of Eden "I think we are living in a period of transition". The comments made so far in the debate show that that period of transition still exists. I speak as one who willingly and enthusiastically endorses the position of women and their status both in Britain and in other countries. I may be somewhat biased, because I am lucky enough to have had a mother and a great-aunt who were Members of Parliament. There was a time when there were two ladies in the House with the name of Rathbone.
  That may have given me an insight into the biases and difficulties which women have faced in the House, which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart). It is peculiar perhaps that the most outstanding bias was not mentioned by the right hon. Lady and is not mentioned in the motion. The House must be one of the few places where the equal opportunities legislation does not apply. There are two completely different sorts of Member. There are Members and there are lady Members, as any lady Member will know who has passed through some of the doors marked "Members Only".
  I wonder whether these little biases—one finds that there are little biases in all parts of life involving different types of person—are especially important. I have a feeling that they are not. They certainly do not matter as much as they did when the suffragettes were fighting their battles or when my great-aunt was a Member of this place. That is because the major influence in politics has come not from women as Members of Parliament but most certainly from women as voters.
  There can be little doubt that it is the preponderance of women voters that has brought about the new political significance of what were once referred to as women's issues—for example, the Health Service, welfare, personal social services, maternity benefits, nursery education, equal pay and such contentious issues as divorce law and abortion. Politics is without doubt more humane in consequence.
  It is not surprising that relatively new-found rights for women have been so quickly translated into such enormous new-found power. Within living memory the control of child bearing and the ability to choose the time and occasion of pregnancy has brought about a physical freedom for women completely different from anything that existed in the past, which should lead in turn to an increasing number of women in this place as Members. That, taken with the legal insistence on equal pay and
  582
  equal opportunities, is forcibly changing the role of women in the British population. In our population women have outnumbered men for many years. The way in which our equal opportunities legislation is an insistence by the minority on establishing equality with the majority is perhaps unique.
  There are not only more women, but they are better educated. The improvement in education is irreversible in its effect and it will continue to show. Once educated, women make an ever-increasing and dramatic change in the work force. The steep increase in the labour force in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was caused by the entry of women. It is interesting and worrying to consider the problems that are being caused as a result of unemployment, which is likely to bear more harshly on women than on men, because they are the late entrants to the working force.
  These crude increases hide the areas in which women are still too little represented. For example, one in three of those engaged in the engineering industry in China are women. In Russia the proportion is one in five. It is one in 50 in the United States, one in 60 in France and Germany and one in 500 in the United Kingdom. It seems that for the moment at least women are blocked, presumably by social factors, although it is open to question whether the trade unions have played as active a part in encouraging women into such jobs as they could have done and as they did in the past.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend refers to the important issue of the trade union outlook. Does he recognise that there is no way that any woman can get a job below ground in SOGAT or NATSOPA? There is the most blatant discrimination against which no action has been taken by any women's organisation so far.
  Mr. Rathbone: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising that issue. It is an ample illustration of the part that powers outside the House have not played in widening opportunities for women. However, we are still evolving.
  Mr. Rooker rose—
  Mr. Rathbone: Some hon. Members may have read in The Observer magazine some time ago an article on the pit-brow heroines. It was interesting to note that their existence led to concern in southern England, not so much because of the tasks that the women had to do, but because the wearing of trousers by women at work might encourage immorality. Even now we still have the same sort of qualms. There is perhaps less concern about immorality and more concern about the strain of the job when it comes to women working in our fire service, among myriad instances.
  I come from a Liverpool family. In the First World War there was much brouhaha about an experiment that led to employing women to unload ships at the docks. Nearly everybody thought that the experiment would be a failure. On the contrary, it proved to be an outstanding success—so much so that the women had to be withdrawn, because they showed that they had a genius for carrying heavy weights. The men became jealous. They were concerned that there would be a growing danger of female dock labour after the war and demanded that at the war's

  583
  end there should be an end to the jobs for women. That goes further to underline the argument that my hon. and learned Friend advanced.
  We should not become too gloomy about lack of opportunity or under-achievement. Over the years and throughout the world women have made the running in completely male-dominated societies and even in societies dominated by male deities. Cleopatra led Egypt and Helen ruled Troy. Elizabeth I ruled Britain and much of the developing world and Queen Victoria ruled Britain and the far-flung British Empire. Madame Pandit is the Prime Minister of the burgeoning Sub-continent of India. Even in the male domain of piracy Anne and Mary were two leading buccaneers in the Bahamas in the eighteenth century.
  I could not help but notice that recently there have been so many various and successful women that the custom of nominating a woman of the year has been abandoned. Is it not a sign of the times, too, that whereas women in the music halls used to be dressed as men, we now have men dressed as women, as Barry Humphries and Dame Edna Everage illustrate?
  In such obvious and simple things we find an illustration of how women have progressed that is perhaps more readily understood by the population outside the House than that offered by the great names of successful women such as Elizabeth Garrett Anderson or more recently, Annis Gillie in medicine, Emily Davies in education, Mrs. Justice Lane in the law, Ann Goodwin in the trade unions and Margaret Bonfield, the first British woman Cabinet Minister. That brings us to the present day and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, our first woman Prime Minister. I do not mention these names in terms of congratulation, because that would be condescending. However, I note their status and the lead that they have provided for other women to follow.
  Women have achieved parity because the law has changed to allow them to do so. Women's organisations have had a potent hand in that. Perhaps they have had a greater hand in it than any other group, in the House or outside. That is in part because society accepts women's ability to achieve. Most of all, they have achieved because women have started to wish to achieve.
  Women are not daunted by the out-of-date portrayals in "Coronation Street", "Crossroads" or conventional, even Victorian-based, leanings towards the sexes. Women have succeeded because, like successful men, they have been blessed with the talents necessary to succeed and because they have had the drive and energy to carve out their own place regardless of their precedents.
  Women may have been helped by their femininity, peculiar as that may sound, because the ability that women have shown is nearly always more noticeable. Instead of this vituperative motion, women outside Parliament can make a major contribution to the continuing struggle to answer the key question relevant to everything that affects family life.
  I now touch upon a point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Where and on what grounds should a line be drawn between the responsibility of the State and that of the individual for the welfare of people? It is crucial to the freedom of individuals that we get the balance right. I wonder sometimes whether leaders in our community, male and female, recognise sufficiently and remember often enough the contribution that mothers and parenthood make in striking that balance. We cannot pay
  584
  enough attention to the condition in which the future generation will be brought into the world and the way in which it will be brought up in that new world. The importance of the home cannot be over-emphasised, nor the continuing importance of women within it.
  If today English men were always as good as English women, I believe that we would have a better understanding of microeconomics, particularly where the value of money is concerned. We would have fewer disruptions in our business and personal lives. It is not just to a woman Prime Minister that Britain can now look to women for a lead. It is to the increasingly financially and socially independent women throughout the country that we must look and to whom the House, through its hon. Members of both sexes, must give a positive lead. The entirely unfair, incorrect, harping and negative motion has no part in that important process and it deserves no support from any part of the House.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Frank R. White: I am grateful for having been called in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the detailed way in which she opened the debate. She set the tone that we should follow this evening. I apologise to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for not following his wide-ranging points. I shall address myself to a specific matter, which follows the point briefly made by my hon. Friend when she referred to homeworkers.
  If there is one group of people in this country who have no rights, no status and little opportunity, it is those who work at home. It is difficult for many people fully to accept that in this day and age of organised trade unions, when so much publicity is given to the so-called power of the trade union movement, there exists a group of workpeople who are exploited and subjected to employment conditions that can unemotionally be termed as slave labour.
  In 1906 the country was rocked by the Sweated Trades Exhibition, arranged by the Daily News. The resulting public outcry led to some Government action on behalf of the homeworkers employed in those sweated industries. I have secured a copy of a Fabian tract of 1907. It is regrettable that some of the comments made and details and conditions highlighted in that document are still relevant today in certain sections of homeworking. Following that disclosure and the great exhibition in 1911 some action was taken. However, since 1911, home-workers have been the forgotten, ignored and abused sector of British industry.
  All successive employment legislation has ignored the working conditions of homeworkers. It concentrated on the employee but somehow ignored the homeworker in his home environment, thereby pushing him into the hands of the unscrupulous and unprincipled employer. I accept that homeworkers were neglected by trade unions and often regarded as employers' scabs during the lockouts and depressive years of the 1920s and 1930s. Only in recent years have homeworkers been regarded in a different light.
  More than anything, the cause of that new awareness of homeworkers' needs has been their evolution into three distinct social groups. By their composition, those people have no industrial muscle or voice and must therefore turn to others for sympathy, support and action. On two occasions, through Private Member's Bills, I presented

  585
  their case to the House, with the support of my hon. Friends. Those workers turned to the House, but they turned in vain.
  Estimates of the number of homeworkers in the United Kingdom range from 150,000 to 250,000. Some authoritative sources put the figure even higher. Whichever number one accepts, the numbers of homeworkers are substantial. They are mainly composed of three groups. The vast majority have one thing in common—homeworkers are women who have no choice but to work at home. They are mothers with young children, who have no access to child-care facilities. Worse still, in the present economic circumstances of public expenditure cuts, those mothers are finding that nurseries are closed and that facilities are no longer available.
  The chronically sick and disabled, who, even in good employment conditions, suffer from the reluctance of employers to take up their registered disabled employment quota, in the present conditions of high unemployment have little or no chance of employment. That is bad enough if one is a disabled man; it is worse if one is a disabled woman. If one is a black, disabled woman, it is nearly impossible to find a job unless one can feed 5,000 with five barley loaves and six fishes—and then it is only in a works canteen.
  Women caring for elderly relatives are often in need of additional family income. The lack of adequate facilities for elderly day care prevents that opportunity. Members of the ethnic minorities suffer language and cultural barriers to working outside the home, and possibly other discrimination if they break the barrier. All share the common ground of needing income to meet rising costs. All present themselves as a ready-made, captive labour force, to be discarded at will and abused on demand.
  Those accusations may seem a little over-emotional and unjust, but how does one describe the following situation of a lady in Manchester, whose name I cannot disclose? She packages baby powders for export. She would not be allowed to package at home baby powders that were to be used for consumption in this country. She receives 30 pence for every box of 240 powders. That works out at ⅛ pence per powder. In a 40-hour week, while catering for the needs of a husband and two children, she manages to pack 4,000 powders, earning £5. From that she has to deduct the cost of bus fares when she travels to the factory to pick up the packets and powder for the following week's work, while delivering the current week's production. Is it worth it?
  Another lady in Humberside has crocheted gloves at home for the past six years. Having responded to an urgent request to meet an order on demand, she finds that she cannot even be paid for the work that she has done. She would not find it easy to have recourse to law. There must be some protection.
  Today the weather has improved, but when we put up our umbrellas we should remember that homeworkers are paid 75p a dozen for stitching them together. A homeworker may also be paid only 50p for turning and hemming 150 yards of cloth on both sides for curtains.
  It may be asked why homeworkers do not organise themselves into trade unions. Mrs. Pat Frolich of Leeds, did just that. She met other workers at the factory gates when picking up supplies. They were appalled when they
  586
  discussed their conditions among themselves, so they organised themselves into a union. They were employed to put tassles on bobble hats and football scarves. They joined the General and Municipal Workers Union. Here I declare an interest. I am a sponsored Member of the union. They were successful in improving wages, but from the moment that the concession was obtained Mrs. Frolich received no more work.
  The media have been kind to homeworkers and have spotlighted the problems. Hon. Members may recall various television programmes. However, they have a great problem in getting people to come forward with horrific stories about their work. They are reluctant to be identified, as the work will dry up if they are. Socially deprived people badly need the extra income, and homeworkers who protest lose their jobs.
  Mrs. Frolich's case is by no means isolated. There was the disturbing case of Delia Cope, who was sacked by Airfix Footwear. She won a declaration of employee status at an industrial tribunal and then at an employer's appeal tribunal. The argument is whether homeworkers are employees or self-employed. Generally, companies will not accept that they are employees. The matter was referred back to the industrial tribunal for a decision on unfair dismissal. The company was not prepared to take Mrs. Cope back and the case was settled out of court for £700. All the company's homeworkers were circulated, and the company stressed that they were self-employed. They had to sign a disclaimer to that effect, or work would have ceased. That is a typical example.
  It would be unfair not to acknowledge that in certain areas there are good relations between employer and homeworker, generally as a result of long-standing agreements with local trade unions and where there are close community relationships. In the valleys of Lancashire the trade unions and workpeople live cheek by jowl and there is a close relationship with the mill owners. An employer may have trained a first-class operative, who leaves to take up family responsibilities, and it is in everyone's interest to maintain an employment relationship based on good conditions.
  The Government may say that the wages councils protect the homeworker, but the reality is different. Only 30,000 homeworkers are covered by the councils, and even many of those receive less than the statutory minimum rate of pay. With the Wages Inspectorate being cut under present Government policy, employers will continue to cock a snook at their statutory obligations.
  The only way to protect homeworkers and to give homeworking women rights, status and opportunities is for the House, homeworkers and their supporters to retread the path of Shaftesbury, Owen, Wilberforce and the other reformers and ask the Government for protective legislation. By doing that we should be following the examples of Germany, France and Italy, whose homeworkers are protected by legislation, much of which goes back over 30 years.
  The issue is simple. The two homeworkers' protection Bills that I presented, which were blocked primarily by the Conservative Party in Opposition and in Government, sought merely to designate homeworkers as employees. From that would flow the benefits enjoyed by every other employee, such as sickness and holiday pay, good standards of health and safety at work, decent rates of pay, protection from unfair dismissal and the opportunity to receive maternity benefits.

  587
  It may be suggested that that would kill off homeworking, but I say to those strident and insensitive voices that that is not so in Europe, where the homeworker is protected by law and accepted as making a valuable contribution to manufacturing. The British homeworker is no less deserving. Blind prejudice has never succeeded in deserving cases; nor will it in this case. Eventually, we shall have legislation.
  The more that the Government refuse to act to the immense benefit of working women, the more they will deserve the condemnation referred to in the motion.
  6.17 pm
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Never in our long history have women had so many opportunities as today, some of which have resulted from the work of women in the House.
  I recall a remarkable old lady, who was a good friend to many of us—Dame Irene Ward. She once saw an advertisement in The Times for librarians for the House of Commons. It ended with the words "Men only need apply". She instantly tabled a question, and received a masculine, unhelpful and stupid reply, to the effect that work in the Library involved carrying heavy ladders, which women could not manage. Dame Irene threw her Order Paper on the ground, stalked out of the Chamber and along the passage to the Library. She picked up a ladder, put it across her shoulder and marched back to the Chamber.
  Unfortunately, the Serjeant at Arms, called upon to make a snap judgment, decided that the ladder was an offensive weapon and allowed her no further than the Bar. She stood there, with the ladder over her shoulder, calling to the Minister that it was not too heavy. There were other hon. Members at the Bar. Every now and then Dame Irene turned round, cutting a swath front and back and causing havoc. The result is that we have some excellent women in the House of Commons Library today.
  Nevertheless, in considering the opportunities open to women today, I believe that the time has come to consider the advisability of encouraging women with very young children to stay at home. With the best of intentions, all kinds of arrangements have been made which make it easy for a woman who becomes pregnant to take just a little time off to have her child and then return to work. We positively encourage women to do that. I seriously question whether that is a wise procedure when the child is very young. I do not think that it is wise for the child. No matter how good the nursery, how excellent the grandmother, or how efficient the child minder, to my mind the child needs his mother when he is very young and will miss her care whoever else may look after him.
  It is also a great pity, by applying social pressures, to deprive a woman of the short time, which is soon over, when her children are very young and she can enjoy bringing them up. Not all women enjoy it. One of the saddest things that I ever read was the comment of a woman who said that any woman who became pregnant had to face 15 years' hard labour. I am happy that only a tiny minority of mothers regard their children in that way.
  For the sake of the public, I believe that we should now look again at our policy. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that half ofthe people arrested in London last year were under the age of 21. I believe that child crime may be linked in a rather worrying way with the number of women at work.
  588
  Mr. Gilbert Kelland, Assistant Commissioner (Crime) of the Metropolitan Police, recently commented:
  "Why do youngsters commit street robbery and attack old people? I do not know. The police officers who deal with them say there is little moral shame when they are caught. Morality seems to have gone out of the window, and that has been a monitor of society down the years."
  I find it a horrendous statistic that half of those arrested are under the age of 21. Moreover, according to arrest statistics, children aged 10 to 16 carried out 14 per cent. of all assaults, 30 per cent. of all robberies, 34 per cent. of crime involving vehicles, and 24 per cent. of criminal damage. I find that, too, horrendous.
  The statistics for crimes committed by children under the age of 10 in the last year for which records are available show that there were 52 cases in Bedfordshire, 182 in Cambridgeshire, 209 in Devon and 623 in Manchester. The statistics for children over the age of 10 are, of course, far worse. I worry especially about these little children. The chief constable in Humberside made the very strong point that
  "Too many children under 10 and below the age of criminal responsibility continue to come to the attention of my Department."
  I discovered from further statistics that the graph of child crimes really began to rise in 1959, which was just when women started to go to work in large numbers. Therefore, I say again that we should examine our policy of encouraging mothers of young children to go out to work, because just as more and more women with young families have started to go out to work, so the graph of child crime has risen. I am happy that in the last short period the rate has begun to fall a little. However, that may reinforce my point, because unemployment means that women have been losing their jobs, which may have affected the statistics.
  Frequently, women have no choice. They have to go out to work because the family budget could not otherwise be met, and I worry about that. I believe that we should consider tax incentives such as are used in France, to encourage women with young children to stay at home. I would not wish to go as far as the Germans, who grant an allowance to households in which the wife has no job, through a system under which, the Opposition will be surprised to hear, the higher the husband's earnings the greater the allowance made for the wife who stays at home. I do not suggest that we should follow that pattern. Nevertheless, bearing in mind also the cost of juvenile crime to the nation, we might examine ways to help and encourage women to stay at home when their children are very young instead of their having to go out to work because they need the money.
  We might consider abandoning the earned income allowance for married women below a certain age who have children, and perhaps also examine the question of unemployment benefit. We might scrap unemployment benefit for that group but give a cash benefit instead and provide that if they obtained a job that made them liable for PAYE they would lose that benefit and would be taxed upon the whole of their earnings. There would then be a tax incentive for them to stay at home and look after their children. Some women have no choice but to leave their children. It is those women that I am concerned about.
  As soon as it is feasible I should like to see schemes to encourage the training of older women either to return to their previous jobs when their children are older or perhaps even to train for new jobs. At present the schemes run by

  589
  industrial training boards in relation to skill training for women seem almost entirely designed for young women. There is little or no chance for a woman whose children have grown up to go back for training. We should concentrate much more on that.
  A consultative document issued last month takes note of this. I wonder whether the Opposition are aware of this publication. In this new training initiative the document mentions four kinds of need that must be met but are not being met at present. It states that
  "growing numbers of those with competences which have become outdated or rusty through lack of practice are seeking retraining or refresher courses. They include large numbers of married women returning to work".
  If the Opposition think that the Government are lacking in energy and action, I draw that document to their attention and point out that it has been signed by no fewer than four Secretaries of State, all of whom clearly endorse the intentions stated in it and have said that they intend to act upon it as soon as possible.
  At this point I also draw the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on Unemployment, which I read with great interest. On 27 November last year the Equal Opportunities Commission gave evidence to the Committee as follows:
  "It is of concern to the Commission that formal barriers exist to the employment and training of older workers by way of age-bars, which in some careers may amount to unlawful indirect discrimination against women. The industrial tribunal case of Belinda Price v. Civil Service illustrates the way in which upper age-bars prevent women who wish to return to work following a career break to rear children, from so doing."
  This seems so important that we should consider it with the utmost seriousness. We should encourage everything that would help to combat the crime rate in young children. We should therefore encourage women to remain at home as far as they can when their children are young and to return to work afterwards.
  I wish to raise one further point, which concerns what I regard as a gross unfairness to women. It relates to the rules governing the invalid care allowance. It is wrong that that allowance should be available to men and single women but not to married women. There must be many women whose husbands are disabled. They must go to work to support the family, but apparently because they are married they are not entitled to the invalid care allowance.
  It has been estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 women in Britain stay at home and care for disabled husbands. If a man's wife is stricken with a disabling disease and he brings in a housekeeper to look after the family while he goes out to work, he is entitled to the allowance. But if the situation is reversed, and it is the husband who is stricken, the woman cannot get the benefit. That is wrong. I hope that Ministers will look at this matter again. It is right that single women should get this benefit, but at present married women are disadvantaged.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My hon. Friend makes a valid point. She will probably note that we keep this matter under constant review. The invalid care allowance has been of valuable and beneficial help to people who care for those at home. I hope that my hon. Friend will
  590
  note that from 1 June this year we have extended the allowance to non-relatives. That underlines my hon. Friend's point even more.
  Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that she has sympathy for the points that I have raised. It is right that single women who have had to care for an elderly parent should get the benefit, but for the life of me I do not see why married women are ineligible. I have the Minister's sympathy. I am sure that as soon as possible I shall also have her action.
  6.31 pm
  Mrs. Renée Short: The whole House is grateful for the opportunity to debate the issues raised in the Opposition's motion. We have very little opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on these issues, which are so important for every family—not just for women but for men and the members of women's families. I am glad that a number of men want to participate in the debate, and I am also glad that the opportunity seems to have been taken with both hands.
  Perhaps the House recalls the words—wrongly attributed to St. Francis of Assisi—of the Prime Minister on the steps of No. 10 immediately after the election. I am grateful to the former Leader of the House—the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—for the correction, because in an interesting interview on television yesterday evening he gave the source as a French archbishop of the last century. Therefore, the words are not quite as old as many people had thought. The words, which stick in my mind, and which were quickly abandoned after the election, were:
  "Where there is discord may we bring harmony".
  We have had very little harmony since the election, and that is not surprising. Those words were abandoned because the Government turned the battle against poverty, which the Labour Government had been fighting hard, into a battle against the poor. As a result, those who have suffered most have been poor women in poor, low-paid jobs—if, indeed, they have jobs—struggling to bring up a family, often on their own, as well as poor elderly men and women.
  The poor elderly were clobbered when indexing according to earnings or prices, whichever was the higher, was taken from them. The sick and the ever-rising ranks of the unemployed have also suffered from successive Budgets. The scrapping of the earnings-related supplement means that all unemployed people are back to a flat rate, and the low rates of unemployment pay and supplementary benefit mean dire poverty for the family.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will know from their weekly or monthly surgeries about the increase in the number of families on supplementary benefit who come to see us with all kinds of related problems. Clearly, there is at present a great deal of poverty among the working poor.
  The indecency of the Government's Budget proposals immediately after the election, when such an enormous amount of money was given to the well-off, set the tone for everything that has followed. In the first Budget, tax cuts to the well-off amounted to £3,500 million, 40 per cent. of which went to the top 5 per cent. of wealthy taxpayers. That meant that a man earning about £30,000 a year got a £4,000-a-year gift from the Chancellor. However, that Budget meant nothing for the poorest.
  Over and over again during the lifetime of this Government, benefits introduced by the Labour

  591
  Government to help lower-paid families in particular—especially women bringing up a family alone—have been abolished. Those benefits include heating allowances and school meals, which have been abolished in some county council and local authority areas. Where school meals have not been abolished, the price has been increased considerably. School transport would have gone in the Education (No. 2) Act had it not been for the revolt in the other place. I am all in favour of retaining the other place. While it would not necessarily be the same as it is now, another Chamber is needed.
  As a result of the abolition of these benefits the woman in the low-paid job has been caught in a severe poverty trap. Today, one in every five working women is the sole breadwinner of the family, and the majority of working women make a vital contribution to the family budget. Without their wages, three times as many families would fall below the official poverty line and have to go on supplementary benefit. Therefore, the Government ought to encourage women to work and to improve the family income.
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs took exception to the figures that I quoted, but I should like to give her some more. I asked the Secretary of State for Employment
  "how many women have been registered as unemployed in April each year since 1970; and what percentage change this represents in each case."—[Official Report, 5 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 431.]
  The answer showed that in 1980–81—that is, to last April—the percentage increase in the number of women unemployed was 51·8 per cent. In the year to April 1979, during the period of the last Government, there had been a fall of 6·1 per cent. in the number of women unemployed. However, the figure rapidly rose to 21·9 per cent. by April 1980 and to 51·8 per cent. by April this year. That indicates the measure of the increase in women's unemployment.
  According to other figures given on 5 June, there has been a 110·8 per cent. increase in women's unemployment in the Wolverhampton area since the Government took office. In the West Midlands as a whole the increase has been 129·8 per cent.
  I presume that the Minister for Consumer Affairs would not cross swords with her colleague over those figures. They show that poorer families who rely on women's wages have suffered severely. According to statistics published by the hon. Lady's Department, only 5 per cent. of male workers provide the sole support for their wives and young children today. That is a staggering figure.
  Many firms have taken the problem of women workers very much to heart, particularly firms in the food industry, which rely on women's seasonal employment. With trade union support, some of those firms have decided to give the jobs that they have to unemployed youngsters and to women bringing up a family on their own. That is a commendable attitude on the part of those employers, particularly in the food industry, in the eastern part of the country, and on the part of the trade unions, to help women who are bringing up a family on their own, and to help young people who otherwise would not have a job.
  The Government are to introduce a new sick pay scheme in the next Session. I think that it will be a slightly re-jigged version of the one that the Select Committee examined recently and for which the Committee, the CBI and the organisations of small businesses all showed little enthusiasm.
  592
  The new proposals offer the employers compensation—rather more compensation than was originally suggested—for running the scheme. They involve paying a flat-rate sum during the first eight weeks of sickness. Employees will be able to certify themselves for short periods of sickness, but in this scheme there will be no extra cash for wives or children, as there is under the present sickness benefit scheme, so women will be on the receiving end yet again of even more problems caused by less money coming into the home when the breadwinner is sick. I wonder how the hon. Lady can defend that.
  In addition—this is part of the object of the exercise—about 5,000 civil servants will lose their jobs when the scheme is introduced. Many of them will be women, so that there will be more women losing their jobs, and probably more hardship will be caused in their families.
  From the Ministers in the Department of Education and Science and in the Department of Health and Social Security, I suppose the factor that most women with a young family look for is the provision of nursery education or day care for their under-fives. Because of the severe cuts in the allocation of resources for nursery education, especially for nursery building, many women in the poorest areas, suffering severe educational and health deprivation, are being prevented from seeking part-time or full-time employment.
  The figures given to me on 18 January by the Department of Education and Science show clearly what has happened in the deprived areas. I am picking out the most deprived. Birmingham had over £1 million allocated in 1975–76 for nursery building, but only £56,000 in 1980–81. Walsall, which is one of the most deprived areas in the West Midlands, had £296,000 in 1975–76. Now it is getting only £42,000. Wolverhampton had £293,000 in 1975–76 and only £84,000 in 1980–81. The Inner London Education Authority, with its massive responsibilities and an enormous number of families, had £2½ million in 1975–76 and only £283,000 in 1980–81. Rochdale had £134,000 in 1975–76, £73,000 in 1979–80, and nothing in 1980–81. I do not know the reason for that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) should take note of that iniquity and campaign very hard for his disadvantaged area in this respect.
  The last area of serious discrimination that I want to raise affects the hon. Lady's Department. I refer to the Secretary of State's refusal to provide the modest amounts for which the Select Committee asked in order to bring down the perinatal mortality rate in these islands to the Scandinavian level and to that of several European countries that have done very much better and are continuing to do very much better than we are at the present time.
  Where poor housing, bad diet and a history of family deprivation exist, so does a high mortality rate among neonates. Where antenatal care is inadequate and badly delivered, where women are treated like cattle, where labouring women are left alone for hours with no one heeding their calls for help, where expectant fathers are shooed away when they want to stay and give support, where nurses and doctors talk to women in the wracking pain of childbirth as though they were silly creatures making a fuss over nothing, and where women are left for hours hitched up to machines and given no encouragement or company, tragedies will occur.

  593
  It is my belief that the overwhelming majority of obstetricians and midwives are caring and kind, and that they know very well what needs to be done to make childbirth a rewarding and wonderful experience. But the minority certainly make women suffer. So I hope that when women complain to the Secretary of State he will personally ensure that their complaints are put right and that he will provide the resources needed, and recommended by the Select Committee, to provide the proper care that women need for themselves and their babies.
  Recently the Select Committee learnt in Sweden of the generous parental leave that is given when a baby is born. The leave can be shared by both parents as they wish and as is best suited to the family needs. They are given nine months in all. Some of it can be taken before the birth and some after the birth by either the father or the mother, as is most convenient and beneficial to the family. Parenthood, after all, is a male function, and the Swedes recognise this, just as they recognise that women have the right to choose how many children they have and when they bear them.
  Freedom of choice should be the right of men and women in these matters, as is indicated in the Opposition's motion, but I think that we shall have to wait for the next Labour Government before that sort of choice is available.
  Another interesting phenomenon at which the Select Committee has been looking is the shortage of doctors in certain areas of medicine, in certain specialties, and in certain parts of the country. Women doctors in training and in postgraduate education need opportunities for part-time training in order to get the experience that they require. They also need the opportunity for part-time jobs if they are to work after they finish their training and if their family commitments are preventing them from taking full-time work. Part-time posts appear to be necessary, although one can see that there are problems.
  When the Select Committee went to Edinburgh it had an opportunity to talk to women doctors who were sharing posts, sharing the care of patients. It worked very well. Obviously, the two women have to be compatible and able to work well together. If one of them leaves to take another post, or for other reasons, immediate problems present themselves, but with a little imagination the problem can be dealt with, to the benefit of the women themselves and their patients.
  Some of the problems were presented dramatically to the Select Committee during its recent visits. Where women doctors are married to men doctors, there are problems of mobility and of careers. Generally, the men feel that the women should be willing to hold back in their career advancement in order to allow the whole family to move to an area where the husband has the opportunity of promotion. But times and attitudes are changing, and one hopes that sometimes we shall hear that the male partner is willing to allow the family to move so that the wife can get the promotion that she needs.
  I remind the House of the question that I put to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and which I was anxious to present to her at Question Time today. Unfortunately, I am not very good at catching Mr. Speaker's eye. I asked her
  "what assessment she has made of the effect of the Government's economic policies on employment opportunities for women."
  I shall not comment on her reply:
  594
  "The Government's policies will strengthen the economy and thus lead to increased employment opportunities for both sexes."—[Official Report, 9 June 1981; Vol. 6, c. 85.]
  I wonder when that will be!
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Gerry Neale: Having realised yet again how valuable are the services of my wife, who in my absence for long hours in this House deals with the affairs of our home efficiently and effectively, I arrived here to find that the debate was to be opened by an hon. Lady, followed by a right hon. Lady from the Government side and that it is to be closed on behalf of both sides by Lady Members. As a male, I wonder whether I should ask for permission to speak. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) described herself as one of the mothers of the House; I do not know whether she was seeking to describe herself as Mother Superior. The tenor of the debate makes male Members wonder whether they should seek a debate to try to recapture some of the ground that they have lost.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was described as having real invective in it. Her strongest argument was that she might be regarded as mediocre in the House. May I be the first to describe her contribution as a superbly mediocre speech?
  Recently many matters have been projected, whether by the female or the male sex, as causing undue indignation or embarrassment. It is ridiculous when things like manhole covers are referred to as personhole covers. In various public houses in Cornwall they are advertising ploughperson's lunches instead of ploughman's lunches. One wonders where this sort of thing will stop.
  Moving on to more serious matters, I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of various voluntary organisations composed of women who seem to understand what needs to be done in various areas. I have recently been involved in the work of the Women's Institute. Like the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and other organisations, it provides many of the services which various Members have said are lacking, but which are far better provided by the voluntary organisations.
  One injustice for women relates to taxation. It is crazy that a husband and wife should be taxed as one unit instead of individually. I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to her colleagues that this should be altered.
  Another problem that has come to light relates to small businesses whose lady employees wish to return to work after having babies. Those of us who have been involved in running small businesses are aware of the value of employing women who, in many instances, fill the role far more willingly than men. We are aware that many of them wish to have children, but many small businesses cannot afford to help pay for that right in the way the law decrees. Keeping jobs open as required and having to employ other staff in the interim makes it extremely difficult for small businesses to plan—
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in the end employers do not have to contribute to maternity pay? Secondly, has he read the evidence gathered by the Department of the Employment survey, which showed clearly that maternity leave did not present a problem to small businesses?
  Mr. Neale: I do not dispute the information that the hon. Lady has given. My experience in businesses in

  595
  which I have been involved is that maternity leave plays a part in staff planning. If a small business employs only four, five or six people it is very difficult for it to take account of the requirements and rights of lady employees who wish to have children. All I am saying is that it is a commercial factor that cannot be ignored.
  It has also been mentioned that in cases of redundancy and reductions in staff ladies suffer first. They are laid off in places with the least heavy union control, the assumption being, I presume, that unions would prevent them from being dismissed if they had greater domination. I did not see any great support for people like Joanna Harris or the ladies in Walsall who were dismissed because they would not join unions. We must ensure that ladies have the right not to join a union.
  I should like to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe and the right hon. Member for Lanark, who both recognised that in the home women respond well to problems of stress and illness and the difficulties which child bearing raises for families as a whole. They did not touch on the fact that ladies have a far clearer understanding of strikes. Often they encourage the men to go back to work and accept the economic realities.
  Women understand these problems better than is often thought. They should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to make sacrifices in their homes, whether they want to limit the number of children in the family, whether they want to have children at all. A woman should decide for herself whether she wishes to make an arrangement with her husband on the role she plays in society. If women decide that they want to make sacrifices to enable them to take up a career, there is little in this life that prevents them from reaching the goal they set.
  Aspects have been highlighted which could be altered, but they are purely technical matters. I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who said that in the final analysis the law can do very little. What is required is a change of attitude of women towards the role they wish to play in society. They have in their own hands the power to make progress if that is what they wish to do.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Today is "ladies' day" in the Chamber, and every lady Member should have an opportunity to express her views on this important matter, so I shall be brief.
  It is a sad reflection on our society that we should be debating an important subject touching on the lives of women throughout the United Kingdom in a Chamber in which women are so grossly under-represented. Few of us sitting complacently here today would have achieved our present status without the support, encouragement, hard work and ability of women, many of whom have been denied the chance of standing for Parliament, despite our sex discrimination and equal pay legislation.
  There are only 19 lady Members of Parliament. In the last Parliament there were about 30. The time has come to change the electoral system by introducing proportional representation so that many more lady candidates may stand for Parliament and eventually be elected to this Chamber. Many people blame women themselves for not standing for Parliament, citing lack of ambition and lack of total commitment to a job of work. But I am convinced that the answer lies deeper than that. It lies in the attitude
  596
  of society towards the status of women in general and the lack of political will to discriminate in favour of women. If women were given the right support and encouragement by men, equal to that which they give us, I feel sure that these Benches would soon see a fairer representation.
  An even sadder aspect is that we should have this debate when we have a woman Prime Minister, and when we realise that a disadvantaged section of our society is being penalised still further as a direct result of policies espoused by the Prime Minister.
  The fact that of the low-paid category 65 per cent. are women and that of all women in work 54·5 per cent, are low paid should shame us all. What is even worse is that current economic conditions are placing even greater stress on the low paid and that women's jobs seem to be the first to disappear. As job opportunities get fewer, more employers feel able to disregard the Sex Discriminaion Act and misuse the Equal Pay Act, and part-time jobs, in which a large section of the female work force is involved, are the first to go.
  The national insurance scheme in its present form also operates against the low-paid worker by setting a ceiling of £27 above which national insurance has to be paid by both employer and employee. This has the effect of either penalising the employee who earns just over this amount or of tempting the employer to keep wages artificially low and to convert full-time jobs into part-time jobs. It is a classic case of the poverty trap.
  Another blow to women's opportunities under the Conservative Government is the savage cut in expenditure on social services. Day nurseries have had to go, fewer home helps are available and school meals have been curtailed. This means that many mothers have been forced to give up work even when the money is sorely needed to keep the household solvent. Many such families have had to resort to supplementary benefit from the State, making nonsense of the Government's avowed aim to save money in the public sector.
  Liberals are wholly committed to the policy that gives every woman the right to work and provides the necessary financial support and services to enable her to do so. We want a national minimum wage and a strengthening of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, so that they can no longer be circumvented by employers. We want an end to discriminatory tax and social security laws which operate so unfairly against women. We should also like more money to be put into further and technical education for school leavers; and we want a fair share of the school leavers who are trained to be girls, so that they can compete on an equal footing with boys in the job market.
  It is possibly true that we cannot legislate to change attitudes, but it is important that we in the House should set an example and at least make it possible in practical ways for women to live full and useful lives, whatever their chosen career in society. The quality of life can improve onlyif women take their rightful share of the responsibility and the rewards—from shop floor to board level. We must today reject the policies of the Government, which so patently have failed to recognise the rights and aspirations of women in all walks of life.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Several hon. Members have referred to women as being the majority

  597
  who are the minority. That should form the focus of our debate, because we are discussing a division between the sexes that is also a division of labour.
  We have heard much evidence about the way in which our economic and social systems continue to discriminate against women. A cause of great concern is the way in which our attempts to intervene in this area—in the limited way in which "labourism" often tends to intervene in society—has failed to right those differences. It is important that someone who is a member of a minority party and who is not a member of the official Opposition should stress that the position of women did not improve substantially under the Labour Government. The legislation introduced by the Labour Government has proved inadequate, as the Equal Opportunities Commission has recently shown in its third report.
  Let us consider women's pay as a percentage of men's over a period. The gap between male and female earnings is narrowest for average hourly pay. In 1974, women earned 67·4 per cent. of what men earned. In 1976 they earned 75·1 per cent. of male earnings. However, that relative rise in women's pay has not been maintained and appears to be, to some extent, a temporary effect of the legislation of that period. Later figures show that in 1978 the proportion had slipped back to 73·9 per cent. In the public sector, women's wages as a percentage of men's wages amounted to 65·4 per cent. in 1974. They increased to 72·1 per cent. in 1976 and went back to 70·3 per cent. in 1978.
  Those figures clearly show that the attempt at intervention by the equal pay legislation was unsuccessful. In the private sector the position is even worse. It has already been said that when legislation was introduced many employers undertook so-called regrading exercises to prevent comparison. The difference between male and female pay often shows that there has been a failure—it is right that I should say this as a trade union member—on the part of the trade union movement to struggle effectively, even for women within its ranks.
  In our society women's jobs are divided from those of men. There are two divisions of labour: a vertical division, where women are at a disadvantage in terms of pay and conditions of work, and a horizontal division of labour, where women are concentrated in particular types of work. A staggering 41 per cent. of all women with jobs in the United Kingdom work part time. That figure comes from a recent issue of "Social Trends". Female wage labour is characterised only by low pay. Reference has already been made to homeworking and assembly work on piece-rate contracts, which is certainly the most exploited form of work. Women undertake such jobs because of their domestic and parental responsibilities. There is a disadvantage in the pay and security of part-time work.
  As long as there is a differential between part-time and full-time employment in terms of pay and conditions there can never be equality of employment or of opportunity for women workers. Women workers are more vulnerable to redundancy during a recession. That is an important aspect of this debate. Department of Employment figures show that since 1974 the recession has resulted in women being made unemployed at roughly three times the rate of men. Since married women are frequently not eligible for State benefits, it is unclear what proportion of unemployed women are registered as such. The evidence fluctuates.
  598
  It is clear that female workers, particularly those who return to employment after having raised a family, are especially vulnerable where a "last in, first out" principle applies. Indeed, that principle is applied too often when it comes to redundancies. Not only do women suffer from two forms of division of labour, and not only do women occupy more insecure and lower-paid jobs than men, but they are less likely to be promoted. That generalisation applies to particular trades, industries and professions and across their whole range. It is a form of fragmentation within the labour market, which the legislation that was calculated to bring about greater equality has failed to tackle.
  Hon. Members have cited women who have done well in their professions. That is not the subject of this debate. The subject is sex discrimination and inequality, which is a structural problem within our society and economy. Women have traditionally constituted a high proportion of the work force in industries such as textiles, and today they still make up 74 per cent. of the work force in the clothing and footwear industry. Women comprise 64 per cent. of the education, health and welfare labour force, 73 per cent. of the clerical labour force, 58 per cent. of the selling work force and 75 per cent. of those employed in personal services such as catering and hairdressing. In addition, 60 per cent. of the entire female work force is concentrated in 10 occupations, headed by clerical work—which takes 17 per cent. of women workers—followed by shop assistants, typists, secretaries, maids, cleaners, nurses, teachers, canteen assistants, shop managers and sewing and textile workers. Most of those jobs can be broadly described as service work, the caring occupations and various socialised forms of domestic service.
  Many feminists have rightly pointed out that the distribution of women in the employed work force bears a striking resemblance to the division of labour within the family. I am concerned about the recession's immediate impact on women. Between 1973 and 1978 female unemployment doubled. Female school leavers faced particular difficulties. In addition, unemployment among that group has risen substantially from 35 per cent. to nearly 50 per cent.
  Industrial South Wales has suffered more perhaps than any other region from the effects of the recession. Again, the number of women who are registered as unemployed has increased substantially. Official figures always underestimate female unemployment by at least 30 per cent. In the case of married women, that underestimation is nearer 100 per cent. A recent study produced by Welsh Women's Aid called "Mrs. Hobson's Choice"—which I recommend as required reading for all hon. Members—showed the restricted job opportunities available to women in Wales. It showed the low average hourly rates paid to many women and showed that there was a ghetto of jobs for women with domestic responsibilities, which established a routine and a low threshold of expectation that they adhered to throughout their later working lives.
  That pattern of discrimination within our economic system is bolstered by discrimination in our social security and tax systems. As a result, it is reflected in our tenure and housing systems. Relatively few women can, in their own right, have control over property or access to housing. In Wales, not one woman was rehoused last year by a housing association. The housing associations did not give tenancies to single women. As a result of the

  599
  Government's cuts in social services and housing provision, four of the 14 refuges established by Welsh Women's Aid for battered women who had been the object of domestic violence are not being funded.
  The effect of the recession is particularly severe on women who shoulder the increased burden of looking after their elderly and handicapped dependants at home. That ties up with my earlier point about the way in which the division of labour reflects the role of women as being in the caring and service occupations. In addition, those who provide domestic labour within the home are not rewarded. The truth is that social service cuts being imposed by the Government are increasingly forcing women to provide that form of unpaid labour in the home. The report by the Equal Opportunities Commission in March last year on the experience of caring for elderly and handicapped dependants found that there were three times as many women carers as men. The responsibility for looking after an elderly or handicapped parent usually falls on the nearest female relative. The largest group of carers is made up of middle-aged women.
  When the Government say that they are interested in increasing voluntary care within our society—they are reducing public expenditure and do not want to see more social workers and more social service provision by local authorities—what they mean is that it is women at home who should provide care in the form of unpaid labour for the elderly and disabled in our society. The Government's cuts in public expenditure are falling to a greater extent on women. The Government have had to justify that through their ideological statements on sexism. That is the only description that I can give to the famous quotation that we have heard from the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  Ministers praise the selfless devotion of women carers to justify their cuts in social services and to justify their penalising of women financially. Recently a hypocritical and extraordinary statement was made by a delegate to the Conservative Women's conference to the effect that, typically enforcing the domestic labour ideology of the Government,
  "a part-time worker is putting her home first and does not qualify for equality".
  That statement was quoted in The Guardian on 20 May.
  In households where there are handicapped persons, especially a handicapped child, the burden and additional cost of the disability always fall on the unpaid labour of the nearest woman relative. As long as that situation exists in our society, the division of labour that applies outside the home will continue to apply more strongly inside the home. In that sense I want to appeal not to women in the House and outside, but to the men. I ask my men comrades to stop treating women's rights as if they were matters for women alone. Until we struggle as hard as our female sisters for creches and nursery facilities, and until we take our part in domestic labour, we cannot have equality inside or outside the home.
  I give one short personal example. This year, for the first time in our home relationship, I have tried to play some part in the bringing up of our youngest child.
  Mr. William Hamilton: For the first time?
  Mr. Thomas: Of course for the first time, because I have been working in the House and in a divided family and was unable to provide the time that I should have provided in sharing domestic responsibilities. My wife has become a part-time student and I have tried to meet some
  600
  of my domestic responsibilities. I have tried to explain to constituents and to people outside the House that the nature of my job makes it impossible for me—
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It is about time that that was said.
  Mr. Thomas: —to provide the time to share and to take part in domestic responsibilities. Until we men with families are prepared to share in the domestic division of labour, women will continue to be exploited. Not only is that exploitation at its base within the family structure, where we expect women to play the so-called caring role in domestic circumstances, but it is paralleled outside in the stereotypes of men and women in our society.
  There is a major role for education and the media to intervene effectively. In coverage given to both genders in the media, we see typically in various textbooks and programmes that 75 per cent. of characters in a recent study of women in the mass media were male and 25 per cent. female. In pictures, 75 per cent. were male and 25 per cent. female. Boys and men are supposed to express so-called male themes, and there are supposed to be female themes often connected with dependence and nurturing. As long as we have those stereotypes in our literature, in the mass media and in our education system, it will not be possible to provide equality of opportunity in our society.
  In that sense I draw the attention of the House to work that has been pioneered in the project on girls in science and technology, which is the most effective positive action programme aimed to induce girls to achieve more in science and to encourage more girls to consider occupations in science and technology. It is funded by the EOC and by the Social Science Research Council. I hope that as a result of that project more schools will actively commit themselves to an attempt to provide equality of opportunity in the education system for girls to ensure that there is no discrimination in the school system, that there is recognition of real sex differences and that imaginary sex differences or ideologically constructed differences are demolished. We should ensure that in our schools we work hard to create a system that attempts to undo the deep divisions created by sexual divisions of labour. That is the underlying subject of the debate.
  7.26 pm
  Mrs. Sheila Faith: I am delighted to follow three gentlemen on this day, which has already been referred to as "ladies' day".
  The Opposition's motion is the typical short-sighted and nonsensical motion that one would expect from them. Nevertheless, I welcome an opportunity to discuss the status of women in employment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who so ably opened the debate for the Government, that this subject should surmount politics. In this century opportunities for women have developed and increased rapidly. That process cannot be suppressed by a Government of any persuasion. The desire of women to use their abilities and talents to the full, so that they can serve their community and obtain job satisfaction and independence, is almost as great as the instinct of women to become home-makers and raise a family.
  We have heard that more women are working now than ever before. While everyone must welcome that and the

  601
  fact that women now have greater educational and career opportunities, most of us surely recognise that most important changes have been brought about not by Governments but by medical science and technology. Because of a better understanding of diet and health care, women are living much longer and, most importantly, because of the improved knowledge of contraception, women are no longer spending the greater part of their lives child bearing and looking after small children.
  If we must look to Government in these matters, the Act that did most to liberate women was the Clean Air Act 1956. That resulted in a high proportion of "black" areas being converted by smoke control orders. Therefore, there was far less dirt and dust for women to clear up. That further released women's energies and more women realised that it was possible to raise a family as well as follow their chosen career.
  While no one could deem war desirable, the First World War also hastened the emancipation of women. As a young girl, my mother replaced her brother in the family business and developed a taste and ability for a business life. Many other women served in factories and as auxiliary soldiers and sailors. However, we cannot deny that at a time of world recession many women who would like to work cannot find employment. Often women are the first to lose their jobs. That situation is exaggerated because women have worked for many years in old or declining industries, such as textiles, footwear, distribution and retailing. Many women's jobs are now threatened by new technology.
  While the world is in recession, our position is made worse because of years of low productivity due to over-manning and slack management. As we are becoming more productive, at the same time there is a temporary cost to jobs. All developed countries are having to face the fact that work of an unskilled or semi-skilled nature is disappearing. That should not necessarily result in high unemployment because the new technological revolution means that the type of work is changing. Even now there is a shortage of women and men in some skilled jobs. Bottlenecks are appearing in engineering and work involving computer-controlled machinery.
  We need not be despondent about the new technology. We should note, that new technology, embraced quickly in Japan, has increased employment. We should follow that example. If some women have been losing jobs, it is not the fault of the Conservative Government or the wish of the Government. Conservatives have always regarded discrimination against women as unacceptable and far removed from our policies of developing and rewarding talent wherever that talent may appear.
  The Conservative Government stated in December 1973 that they would introduce legislation to take unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and to provide equal opportunities. The Labour Government introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Conservatives welcomed the Act. Most of us believe wholeheartedly that women should have access to courts or tribunals if they believe that they have been discriminated against. I think, however, that many of us would agree that the Equal Opportunities Commission has not always behaved in a sensible manner and has brought ridicule upon itself by some of its
  602
  activities and publications. I hope that the commission will pause to think that it may be damaging the reputation of women and therefore job opportunities.
  There is no doubt that prejudice against women exists in many fields. I feel that legislation is not the way to tackle any problem of prejudice. The only way to overcome prejudice is for women to demonstrate their ability. It is interesting to note that during the early and mid-1970s, when there was no legislation, women's pay increased to 75 per cent. of men's earnings. By 1979, when the Labour Government had been in power, and following years of equal opportunities law, it had fallen to 73 per cent. The gap between women's and men's earnings is widening all the time. An article in The Times today refers to the last five years during which equal opportunities legislation has been in force as five wasted years.
  I should like to draw attention to a letter written by Mrs. Joanna Bogle and others published recently in The Times. The women who wrote the letter are aged from the 20s to the 80s. All are successful in their careers. They call for the abolition of the Equal Opportunities Commission. They are particularly worried about the literature sent by the Equal Opportunities Commission to schools to promote the cult of unisex. The letter states:
  "From the proliferation of 'free' but lavish Equal Opportunities Commission literature we learn that conditioning for unisex should start early with 'ending sex stereotyping in schools'. Female Red Indian chiefs are advocated, although historically inaccurate, and wall friezes of 'parenting' activities should show men feeding the baby. Bottles of course. Unisex cannot deliver the top grade article. If, on this scholastic diet, literacy is achieved, why, then, we must change the language: use 'firefighter' instead of 'fireman', 'synthetic' instead of 'man-made'. Laughable? Or frighteningly akin to lunacy?"
  Of course we do not want children's books always to picture women in a subordinate role, but we must keep a sense of proportion. There is no doubt that pupils of both sexes must be encouraged to take an interest in mathematics and science and we hope that more of these pupils will be girls. Certainly, many years ago, in my single sex school, I was encouraged to develop my talent in mathematics and science. There are reports that girls in single sex schools do better in mathematics than girls in mixed schools. This matter should be further investigated. Incentives should be given for women to come forward as mathematics and science teachers so that they, in turn, can look out for young women who have a natural aptitude in these subjects.
  The Government are taking action. They have conducted a thorough review of the curriculum. There have been detailed discussions with all partners in the education service. The school curriculum has been published as guidance to local education authorities. It emphasises the need to maintain essential subjects like English, mathematics and a modern language for all pupils by giving them a specific place on the school timetable. We must prepare women to be independent in this era of rapid change. Husbands may spend some time retraining and changing careers. A wife's salary may be necessary to maintain family security. Elderly parents are living longer and require more support. Sadly, many more women have to bring up children on their own.
  It is difficult for women to reach the height of their professions. In spite of the fact that the proportion of women in medicine is now about 22 per cent. and women will make up half of the intake of medical schools by 1985,

  603
  women hospital doctors have particular difficulty in getting into the highly competitive specialties such as general surgery, general medicine and cardiology.
  I am privileged to be a member of the Social Services Select Committee. Its Chairman has already spoken in this debate and referred to our investigation into postgraduate medical education. We have experienced great difficulty in finding out exactly why women do not reach the heights. Those who specialise tend to concentrate in great numbers in specialties where there is a shortage of applicants. Shortage of part-time jobs is often given as a reason for this situation. Lack of child care facilities is also quoted.
  Last month our Select Committee visited Sweden. The lessons that we learnt are interesting and important. Sweden is considered to be a progressive country. It is often stated to be way ahead in giving consideration to equal opportunities. In Sweden there is no shortage of part-time jobs for doctors. Even men may prefer shorter working hours, because of the heavy tax system. While there are facilities for pre-school child care, they have been spurned, we were told, by the intelligent young women doctors.
  In spite of all the advantages in Sweden's society, a greater proportion of women doctors are still not achieving special status and are still to be found more usually in general medical practice. This apparent under-achievement is strange, because the Swedish Government give great assistance to women and have helped them in many ways by legislation.
  Since 1939 it has been illegal for a woman to be dismissed because of marriage or pregnancy. The employer has been required to keep the job open for her return. Equal pay for equal work was adopted by the trade unions and employees as official policy in 1960. Over the years attempts have been made through the educational system to break down traditional attitudes towards the sex roles. In 1971 the tax position of women was improved to encourage them to return to work. New parent allowances introduced in 1974 were designed to promote a sharing of the child-minding role. Yet, although a high proportion of Swedish women work and there has been maximum legislation and Government assistance, women are still in subordinate roles.
  It is attitudes that must change, and not legislation. I also believe that the high proportion of mothers who work in Sweden has made it more difficult for the children to develop. The country has a high incidence of psychiatric problems. I would not deny the necessity for a form of creche to cater for the children of some single-parent families or for those few mothers whose emotional development is retarded and who cannot look after small children. It is important for us to note that our Committee was told by a prominent Swedish doctor that as many as 25 per cent. of children put into creches at an early age showed some sign of psychiatric disturbance later in life. This is a cautionary tale for those organisations calling for more creches in factories and other establishments.
  In April a former Swedish Minister of Health visited this country. She came to study our Health Service, but more particularly to learn about the wonderful voluntary work done in this country. Because the Swedes have come to rely on the State for all social services, and also because a high proportion of women work, there are virually no voluntary or good neighbour services in Sweden.
  604
  I received a report this week from the Derby Council for Voluntary Service. I was gratified to read of the wonderful work done by people voluntarily in the area that I represent in citizens advice bureaux, the leagues of hospital friends, parent-teacher associations, marriage guidance councils, the Samaritans and in work for spastics. One could go on listing the organisations. We are proud of the work done in Age Concern and the role performed by the WRVS. All hon. Members, I am sure, are conscious of the fact that our democratic processes are helped greatly by the wonderful work done by women in helping political parties.
  Many people in this country do not realise the high proportion of our personal social services that are carried out by voluntary workers. Of course some of these services are carried out by women still in work or in early retirement, but often the work is carried out by young women who take time off from looking after their young families.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission gave the impression that it would like to see a takeover of all child care by the State, and would also wish to bring all women into the job market, even if they are not particularly anxious to do so. That would be a great disservice to our voluntary services. None of us can contemplate how soul-destroying it would be to live in a country where that type of service was not available. The State would become all-pervading, there would be less experimentation, and there would be no choice for those who are averse to seeking State aid.
  The hospital service in Sweden suffers also from a lack of voluntary workers in the wards. The nurses are too busy creating a sterile atmosphere to give the patients the kind of warm attention that people receive in our hospitals. We must meditate on the Swedish experience. I believe that emotional stability depends very much on the early years, and there is no substitute for mothers at that time. Therefore, greater status should be given to young women who decide to spend several years with their young families. They should be given tax incentives to do that, and possibly allowances, as happens in some other countries.
  The Government have helped women. They have removed discrimination. There are to be changes in social security benefits, which will represent one of the biggest improvements in the status of women since the present social security system was introduced over 30 years ago. Widows' pensions have been freed of income tax. About 30,000 pre-1950 Service men's widows have been given a pension to which they were not previously enitled.
  As a result of prompting by the Social Services Select Committee, the Employment Act 1980 gives working women the right to take time off to visit antenatal clinics. When I served on that Committee, we found that one of the prime reasons for perinatal and neonatal mortality was that mothers did not attend antenatal clinics soon enough. This legislation is most important if we are to improve the health of women and babies.
  I do not accept that this Government have discriminated in any way against women. The Labour Party believes in the power of Government intervention and talks of political will. I believe that it is up to management, unions, schools, universities, parents and women themselves to ensure that women are given opportunities, not only to have employment, but to use their talents fully.

  605
  I much regret that of the 77 brand new Conservative Members elected in 1979, I was the only woman. However, I assure the House that I was given great encouragement by the Conservative Party, for which I am grateful. The Prime Minister demonstrates that a woman can show qualities of leadership, courage, determination and ability as great, or even greater than, any man. I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the motion.
  7.44 pm
  Miss Jo Richardson: Having listened to some of the speeches of Conservative Members, particularly that of the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith), but perhaps more so the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs Knight), I was reminded how, in crisis situations such as the last war, when women were required in the national interest to go out to work, creches and nurseries were provided within a few weeks. There was no talk at that time, or immediately after the war, about latchkey kids and child deprivation, because their mothers were out at work and their fathers were away at the war. Those services were withdrawn because, unfortunately, the old attitudes crept in immediately after the war.
  The fact remains that if a country wants to provide services for its people it can do so. It can find the money and the resources. All that is needed is the will to do it, and that is what I want our society to do in the near future.
  Much play has been made of the fact that more women now go out to work. Of course that is true. For the great majority of women, to go out to work is the norm, not the exception. A decade or two ago it was less the norm than it is now. In those days more people went to school, had training, took a job, got married, and were expected to stay at home. That no longer happens. Now, on balance, women prefer to work, either for economic reasons or to widen their horizons, and not to be stuck all the time in the home, often with very boring jobs.
  Over 40 per cent. of our work force today are women. Most women expect to be in paid employment for the best part of their adult lives. Over three-quarters of all non-married women are either in jobs or looking for work, while over half of all married women, and 70 per cent. of married women between the ages of 35 and 54, go out to work, and expect to do so. Of course women expect to stay at home at some period if they cannot make other arrangements during their child-bearing years, but the fact remains that women are an accepted part of the work force.
  The latest figures for women in employment show that over 9 million women are in paid employment, compared with 13 million men. So work is considered to be a shared thing in this country—and perhaps generally in Western society. So it ought to be. Attitudes will begin to change, and some attitudes have changed.
  Much play was made earlier by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and by the right hon. Lady about the so-called failure of the Sex Discrimination Act. I was a member of that Standing Committee, and I wish that some of my advice had been taken at that time. I accept that that legislation was only a framework and that some of the things that were said at the time have been proved right and that the measure is not strong enough. I am much in favour of a legal framework within which we can build. We cannot get rid of discrimination and change attitudes
  606
  until we have a legal framework that forces people to think about the matter. There has been a change of attitude, in spite of the weaknesses of the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation. Between men and women there has been a shift over the past five or six years since that legislation came into operation. It is not enough, but it is a beginning.
  Three-quarters of all women work in service industries, as many hon. Members have already said. They occupy a large proportion of the jobs in shops, cafes, hairdressers, hospitals, schools and offices. They are in largely unskilled, badly paid and part-time jobs, to fit in with their family responsibilities. I am not knocking part-time jobs. Over the next decade or so more and more people may participate in job sharing or do part-time work when we have a shorter working week. That is a good thing. I am not knocking part-time work, but I am knocking the fact that women are denied jobs and training for jobs in skilled areas, and are often committed to jobs in unskilled areas when they could be doing more. Most working women are badly paid compared with men. That does not mean that there are not low-paid job sectors for men. We want to raise the general average of wages.
  We could take action immediately. I am sorry that neither this Government nor the previous Government took the necessary action. We should amend the Equal Pay Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) said that the Act was fine as far as it went, but that it affected only women who could compare their jobs with men's jobs. That leaves a large part of industry serviced by women who have no men with whom to compare their wages. We should change the Act so that women receive equal pay for work of equal value. That is a better base on which to work. The EEC directive on equal pay uses that formula. I am no supporter of the Common Market, but I am happy to pinch from it any good ideas. One does not have to be in the Common Market to draw on the experience of other countries.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has called for a strengthening of the Equal Pay and Sex Disrimination Acts. The Fawcett Society, a respectable society the members of which could hardly be called bra-burning women's libbers, is about to submit proposals for changing the law.
  In October 1946 the House adopted a fair wages resolution to ensure that Government contractors paid fair wages and observed fair conditions of employment. It has no statutory force, but it expresses Parliament's will about the way in which the Government should safeguard workers' interests. That resolution could be amended to include a provision that firms should take positive steps to encourage the recruitment, training and promotion of women and racial minorities. That is a practical step.
  We should give the Equal Opportunities Commission more teeth. The hon. Member for Belper made some snide remarks about the EOC. I believe that the EOC is weak. We should give it more power. For example, firms on which a non-discrimination notice is served should lose their eligibility for grants from public funds. That would soon make them sit up and do their stuff. Such firms should lose their right to tender for contracts or sub-contracts paid for out of public money. That would hurt.
  We should ban discrimination on grounds of marital or family status throughout all areas covered by the Sex Discrimination Act, not just in employment. We should examine seriously education, credit and mortgages, where discrimination still exists.

  607
  Jokes have been made about the EOC report on educational material. We have only ourselves to blame if we continue with discrimination by allowing sexist teaching materials and books in schools. A girl's image of herself begins at home and is continued at school. By the time a girl reaches the second half of her schooling, her image of herself is set by the training that she has had.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the difficulties that many women in part-time employment, in particular, are experiencing as a result of public spending cuts and redundancies. They have said that only paid employment suffers. The social services that should be provided and that society has come to expect to be provided by the State or by local government are being withdrawn. Women are expected to pick up the tab and do such jobs.
  The Tories have walked out on the sick, the old and the disabled. They have left their health and welfare to the womenfolk at home. The hon. Member for Belper talked warmly about the good work of the voluntary services. I agree with her, but I do not want our social and health services to be replaced by voluntary services. We have seen too much of that. Immediately after the war, before the introduction of the National Health Service, that was the norm. Everybody had to go cap in hand to the soup kitchen and to the people who provided voluntary services. Good as it was, I do not want to return to such aid.
  The Government have taken many strides towards encouraging women to be full-time caretakers, looking after their children, aged relatives and invalids. Women comprise a frustrated work force. They are unpaid workers at home doing work that should be done for them. They are being discouraged from going out to work.
  Discrimination still exists in the form of the notorious married women's non-contributory invalidity pension. The scheme involves disabled married women undergoing a household duties test to prove that they can perform such duties, before they are awarded a pension. That test does not apply to married or single men, or to single women.
  The battle has been going on for a long time. It arose under the Labour Government and the problem was referred, with the full support of the present Secretary of State for Social Services, to the National Insurance Commission for a definition of household duties. The household duties test is discriminatory in principle. I cannot understand why married women are not treated the same as married men or single men and women. The test is based on the outdated view of the role of married women and that of women in general. The scheme has proved to be impossible to operate on an equitable and sensible basis.
  The National Insurance Commission reported to the DHSS last July, nearly 12 months ago. The Secretary of State's response was to set up a review of the household duties test to see whether it was a proper test that should be applied. We have heard nothing. Week after week I and other hon. Members have asked when we can debate the NIAC report and see the DHSS review. What stage has the review reached? When can we see it and debate it? Married women are becoming extremely militant about the matter. They are fed up with being treated as a tiny minority that can be ignored, despite all the difficulties that they have to face and the humiliations that they are still put through when applying for a non-contributory pension.
  I hope that the next Labour Government will set out a comprehensive package of reforms right across the range
  608
  of social security discrimination, taxation discrimination, provision of proper services through local authorities and the Government, nurseries, and so on. I shall not go through the whole range, because most people understand what we are discussing. We should set out a package of reforms towards which we, as a Labour Government, could work as quickly as possible during the next few years.
  No one would expect things to be done overnight, but certain things could be done fairly quickly. As long as we know that we shall carry out the policies, we carry the women with us. If we begin on that road it will give women confidence in themselves. they will see that there is a legal framework and proper social services to enable them to make the choice whether and when they stay at home or whether they go to work.
  I hope that we shall do something about the image of women as portrayed in the media. The hon. Member for Merioneth referred to that. I look at the matter from the other side of the coin. I once spent a whole Saturday evening looking at television advertisements because I was making a speech about them. I was horrified to see the way in which women were portrayed. Because women absorb an image—we all do, including myself—that using one washing powder or another is important, it is no wonder that they accept the view that theirs is the supportive role of ensuring that their husbands' shirts are whiter than white. They are sometimes portrayed as sex symbols. Even in cartoons they appear as little Mrs. Mops. One does not see little Mr. Mops. The whole scene militates against women and against their realising that that is an image of themselves which the men want them to have. That is the basis of the issue. It is no wonder that they often do not aspire to great heights.
  It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen, and perhaps some hon. Ladies, to say that women can get anywhere they want if they have the talent and try hard. I am talking not about the few women in the House—although I wish we were more—or about the few women judges and the few women consultants, but about the great mass of women in Britain—more than half the population—who may be mediocre people, similar to some of us in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) made that point in her excellent opening speech. Such women have a right, as we all do, to stretch their minds and their horizons, to have a job if that is their wish, and to have job satisfaction.
  During the next decade, or before if possible, I want to see a pattern set for women that will release them from the burdens of the home. I am talking not about taking them out of the home altogether but about releasing them from some of the worst burdens so that they can play their proper part in decision-making in our society. They want to do that. They want to have a hand in shaping Britain for the future, not only for women's rights, but for the sort of society in which they want their families and children to live.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: When looking at the content of the motion on the Order Paper it appears that the debate should be taken for 19 days, rather than being the 19th allotted day. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, dwelt at considerable length on the generalities, rather than giving the House any idea of

  609
  what the Labour Party might do if it were ever returned to Government. On the basis that the motion includes a mass of evidence about guilty actions by the Conservative Party, there could have been a greater degree of thrust from the hon. Lady.
  The Opposition's concern about the issue has not permeated through to their Back Benches. Only 10 hon. Gentlemen and eight hon. Ladies were in their places to hear the hon. Lady make her opening speech, yet 284 Opposition Members support the Labour Party—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What about Conservative Members?"]—This is a Supply day, with the topic submitted by the Opposition. It is a day of criticism of the Government by the Opposition. Where are the members of the Opposition? Are they in their places to support the hon. Lady?
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting—and if he is, we accept it—that on Supply days the sole prerogative of speaking should be in the hands of the Opposition? Is it not true that the Tory Whips have been scouring the building to get the few Tory Members who are around into the Chamber?
  Mr. McQuarrie: That is typical of the rubbish that I expect from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: I must say in my own defence that I have sat in my place during the whole debate and listened to the speeches with great care.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady is one of only three Conservative Lady Members.
  Mr. McQuarrie: I shall leave the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) unanswered. It is difficult to speak in detail about the many subjects contained in the motion. Most are criticisms or wild statements that have no substance. As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the motion shows how bereft are the Opposition when trying to find a subject for a Supply day debate.
  I want to concentrate my few remarks on the demand in the motion for further abortion clinics. Why the Opposition should seek to increase their number is beyond me. On a number of occasions we have debated the subject of abortion, but, regrettably, have so far been unable to limit the number of abortions that take place in Britain each year. The figures for 1980 are frightening and prove that there is no justification for the demand to increase the number of clinics.
  In England and Wales the number of notified abortions increased from 147,451 in 1979 to 163,126 in 1980, an increase of 10·63 per cent. That needless waste of 163,126 lives shows clearly that abortion clinics are nothing more than the gas chambers of the Hitler era. Any steps to increase them should be resisted by the House. The Opposition say that they are interested in equality, but what equality did they give the 163,126 aborted children?
  The Opposition motion condemns the Government for their policy towards the status of and opportunities for women. It is clear that neither the hon. Member for Crewe nor the members of her party have followed the steps taken by the Government to maintain their commitment to a society in which all individuals have equal rights in law and equal opportunities to work. In 1981 the
  610
  Government's youth opportunities programme will provide 50 per cent. more opportunities for unemployed young people, including young women. The opportunity for young mothers to take up employment will be further aided by the extra nursery education places that will be available. Since the Government took office there has been an increase of 5,600 extra nursery education places. I accept that that is not enough, but it is a significant figure.
  Let us consider some of the other positive decisions that have been taken by the Government in bringing equality to the sexes. Under the Labour Government, a married man drawing unemployment benefit or sickness benefit could draw an additional sum for his wife if her earnings were below a certain level. He could draw also additional benefit for his children. However, when the Opposition were the Government the reverse did not apply. There was no equality of rights for women under the Labour Government. A married woman drawing unemployment or sickness benefit could not draw additional benefits for her husband or children. Under the present Government, and following EEC rules, a woman will be entitled to draw those benefits. From November 1983 a married woman will be able to claim benefits, including maternity benefit. By 1984 she will be in a position to claim all the additional benefits, and that will give her the same status as a man.
  The Government have taken steps to ensure that by November 1983 a married woman will be able to draw additions to her invalidity pension for a dependent husband. She was not able to do so when the Labour Government were in office.
  Dr. McDonald: She will have to pay tax.
  Mr. McQuarrie: No, she will not have to pay tax. The Social Security Act 1980 introduced legislation that will bring other benefits to women and give them rights equal to those enjoyed by men. The changes that I have described, which will all come into effect by November 1984, will represent the largest improvements in the status of women since the present social security system was brought into being 30 years ago. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs said, taxation changes for the benefit of women have been and are being brought into effect by the Government. Women are now enjoying larger maternity allowances and better conditions than ever before. The opportunities that are being offered to schoolgirls cover the spectrum of industry and commerce.
  The Government have played their part in putting right the many ills perpetrated upon the British people by the Labour Administration. It was nonsensical of the Opposition to table the motion when the majority of the blame for the state of the economy may be laid at the door of an inept Labour Government. The Government will continue to press ahead with positive policies that will soon lead to a free and fair society and a healthy economy. The motion should be treated with the contempt that it deserves. If it is pressed to a Division, I hope that it will be firmly defeated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has only recently entered the Chamber.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is not enough to do what so many hon. Members have done and merely point to the defects of those on the Government Benches and, in common with the motion, rest their case on that basis. The Government's record is deplorable. There have been cuts in the social services that have taken away many of the limited freedoms that women had acquired little by little from the Welfare State over many years. The Government's legislation, including the Nationality Bill, inherently judges women to be inferior citizens. The Government's appalling record of unemployment has been masked by the way in which some of their policies have denied women access to work and have thrown them out of work as well.
  The Government are no more than a symptom of society's inability to offer women an equal role. We must at the same time severely criticise institutions in our society as well as the Government for refusing to make changes. Women's involvement in all institutions has increased in the past 10 years quite considerably, but they are everywhere under-represented in positions of power. That applies to both sides of industry especially. The TUC and its member unions claim that they have the interests of women at heart. Demands for equal pay and equality and their accompanying rhetoric have been on the agenda for discussion at the Trades Union Congress and at union conferences year in and year out. These demands have been on the list alongside men's objectives, but when the chips are down they fall off the end of the list.
  Women represent over 40 per cent. of the work force and form 30 per cent. of trade union membership. However, unions still organise around full-time work and for fringe benefits from which women are largely excluded by their domestic role. There are no women general secretaries, and even in unions where the majority of the membership is female there are few on higher policy-making committees.
  Trade unions are by no means the worst offenders. They reflect the world of work and to some extent they are trying to help women. The same cannot be said for institutions governing the professions and business. The figures in the annual report of the Equal Opportunities Commission highlight that fact. Women make up only 13 per cent. of the Institute of Bankers, despite the very many women who work in banking organisations and institutions. They make up only 4 per cent. of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. They make up as little as 2 per cent. of the Institute of Marketing. Even in teaching, where women predominate, the record is appalling. Although women constitute 44 per cent. of teachers in secondary education, only 16 per cent. manage to become head teachers. The new earnings survey reveals that only 7·6 per cent. of managerial staff are women. Only 1·5 per cent. of the members of the British Institute of Management are women and only 2·2 per cent. of the members of the Institute of Directors are women. That is a minute proportion of their memberships.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission clearly demonstrates that women's pay had improved to 73½ per cent. of men's hourly earnings, but that improvement has now ceased. That has happened for two reasons. The first is that the majority of women workers are concentrated in low-paid, undemanding work, with few prospects. They are in jobs where nearly all the employees are female. Thus, the
  612
  comparison with men's earnings under equal pay legislation is largely irrelevant. The second reason is that men's pay is made up by bonuses from productivity schemes and overtime earnings. Women are not able to compete with men, because they still have a major domestic role caring for children. It is the assumption that women will remain the domestic parents that is at the heart of women's disadvantage.
  In the eyes of employers and unions men's wages are defined as the family wage. We still assume that women work for a second income—that is, second in order of importance—and that income is often described as pin money. That applies even where the basic rate of pay is the same for men and women. Women remain on the basic rate and men earn more. In reality, the problem of equal pay is that of low pay.
  It is due to their domestic role that too many women choose to do part-time work. The only long-term solution to the problem is to change the way in which society organises work and to make more part-time work available. That will benefit women, but women need flexible hours, job sharing, part-time working and an end to the institutionalised overtime that has become a norm in many industries. It is crucial that men and women should be free to play an equal role in child care and to vary their working patterns with no disadvantage to their career prospects.
  Paternity leave should be seen to be just as important and available as maternity leave. If we are to be serious about women's rights, we must recognise that for women to benefit it will be necessary for men to give up some of their privileges and traditional roles. Not only would paternity leave help women at the time of childbirth; it would establish in employers' minds the idea that all their employees, men and women, are equally responsible for their children. Employing a woman would no longer be seen just as a liability and would no longer be regarded as more of a liability than employing a man.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate. I know that many hon. Members are waiting to speak. It is a slight imposition if, when many hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber all through the debate, someone is allowed to enter the Chamber at a late hour and instantly take part in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The choice of speakers is a problem. However, that matter is for the judgment of the Chair. We are bearing in mind the growth of the minority parties, and so on, and we are trying to reach a proper solution to the problem.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Like some other hon. Members who are wishing to speak, we have responsibilities in Committees in other parts of the House. Therefore, it is difficult to attend the whole debate. Those of us who are on Committees have attended as much of the debate as possible.
  Paternity leave would bring about a radical shift in attitudes. It would do so not only in industry but in society as a whole, in which the attitude towards parenthood is rather old-fashioned. Paternity leave would show that a man's place is not necessarily just at work, and that a woman's place can be at work as much as it is the man's.
  Special measures on behalf of women have been effective, but only in a limited way. We now have to find

  613
  a way of taking into all legislation that is put before the House the objective of benefiting women. Immediate legislation could be framed to end descrimination in taxation, superannuation and welfare benefits, which punish women who spend portions of time out of their working life caring for their children and make the assumption that there will always be a man to support them.
  An example is to be found in the special programmes for young people. This is a statutorily funded area where we can establish a model for good practice and ensure that young women are given wide opportunities to experience work outside the narrow, traditional female sphere. At the moment, women have access to only one six-month block. Almost inevitably they end up in low-paid, low-status women's jobs such as hairdressing, secretarial and nursery nurse training. It is for those responsible for such schemes to ensure that young women are offered broader horizons and to break the patterns of sexual stereotyping for both boys and girls.
  Women now need not so much special legislation as for their interests to be taken into account throughout all legislation. Many policies fought over in the sterile battles between men of Left and Right take on a new perspective when women's interests are allowed to be voiced. By looking at some of the major issues of the day through the eyes of women, instead of the eyes of men in positions of decision-making power, we might end up with different policies.
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to have women in positions of power, why is his party not choosing a woman as its candidate in its first parliamentary by-election?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will happen soon. I shall refer to what our party proposes to do to ensure that more women enter the House.
  We need to make a change in order to ensure that all legislation takes into account women's rights and opportunities. When discussing the question of raising the standard of education of our children, we seem to continue to assume that the mother is at home at 3.30 pm when children come out of school. We continue to assume that the mother is there all afternoon to help her children with their homework and any other activity. That assumption is made with no regard to the fact that 68 per cent. of married women now go out to work, and with no regard to the real educational needs of children. Latchkey children living in homes where there is little room for doing homework pose a greater threat to educational standards than arguments about poor curricula.
  If we considered educational needs from a woman's standpoint, we might conclude that keeping open schools until 5.30 pm would do more for education than anything else. Undoubtedly that would cut across traditional, rigid conventions and agitate the relevant unions, but it is such institutional immobilism that has prevented both parties from making the radical changes that are needed in a society that has changed radically.
  Legislation for equal pay and sex discrimination has, by and large, done as much as could reasonably have been expected of it. The United States and some European countries have abandoned the passive approach to rights for women, having realised that legislating against
  614
  discrimination can achieve only limited results. It is now time for us to follow their lead and look seriously at the introduction of positive discrimination in favour of women, going as far as considering quotas to stamp out discrimination against them. One cannot give equal opportunities to people who are seriously disadvantaged, without giving extra assistance to them.
  The Manpower Services Commission has recognised that women are a large and permanent part of our labour force. The Government must ensure that women are given equal educational and training opportunities so that they cease to gravitate towards the low-paid, low-status jobs. Women of all ages need special courses to introduce them to jobs that have not been traditionally women's work. The Government can do that direct where they are responsible for funding training and education and by giving a lead to those responsible for education and training in industry and in commerce.
  At the end of the day, the only way that that will be done is by seriously considering the introduction of quotas for women, until such time as they are no longer necessary. Many people are shocked at the very idea of that and cling to the notion that jobs in offices of all kinds should go to the best man, regardless. That is just it. The best man always gets the job. Women never get the chances that they need, or the experience, so that they are selected the next time round. Where quotas have been used, as on the TUC general council, for example, after the initial opposition women have rapidly been accepted as part of the normal political process, albeit for only five out of the 45 members.
  The Social Democratic Party is proposing to take positive action to ensure that women and other groups within the party are truly represented at every level. Nowhere is that more necessary than in choosing candidates for the House. We believe that the Government should give a lead by taking positive action through Departments. All companies applying for State finance or Government contracts should be required to ensure that women's rights are taken into account.
  It is easy to talk about legislating on behalf of women, but the real test is to give them their own share of legislative power in the House. We believe that ending the two-party block political voting system through proportional representation will automatically increase women's representation in Parliament and in the policy-making process. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?".] There is much interest in the topic, although hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem to regard it as hilarious. Either they have not seriously considered it or they are not seriously interested in the issue, and all the evidence from the Labour Party is that it is not seriously interested.
  If a system of proportional representation, for instance, on a regional list system, were introduced, it is virtually inevitable that the party choosing the list would ensure that it contained a reasonable selection of lady candidates to make it a balanced ticket. Similarly, if it were being done on the basis of a multi-Member constituency, again the party would almost certainly want to ensure that it got a balanced ticket and, as a result, would put a proportion of women on the list to ensure that it was truly representative of the area.
  If we look at examples in other countries where proportional representation operates, we find that, for instance, in West Germany, 44 out of 496 Members of Parliament are women and in Sweden it is 26 per cent.,

  615
  or 92 out of 349. That is why we claim that proportional representation will lead to more women being elected to the House.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am a long-standing supporter of proportional representation and I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. Had he not made such a long speech, I should have been able to make the same point in my speech. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to proportional representation, however deathbed. Our point is that the Social Democratic Party has in Warrington a chance to show its attachment to women candidates. Why does it not seize the chance and put up a woman candidate?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: The possible candidates took the decision to stand or not to stand. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Mrs. Shirley Williams, she made the decision. Labour Members are taking a great deal of interest in our activities. I assure them that it will not be long before Shirley Williams is back in the House.
  All political parties should pledge themselves to positive discrimination in favour of women candidates, instead of making hollow gestures like putting up women for unwinnable parliamentary seats. Traditional political parties have long pleaded their history and institutions as an excuse for denying political power to women. They will no longer be able to give that excuse in the face of this Parliament having the lowest proportion of women in post-war years.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission report confirms that if we are committed to a society based on sexual equality the excuses of history must be replaced by positive action. I hope that before long the pressure of women outside this place will ensure that all political parties will introduce policies and constitutional systems for their own parties and for the system of electing hon. Members to the House to ensure that women play their rightful part in the country's life.
  8.34 pm
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I feel as though I am about to intervene in a rather private quarrel. I appreciate that the party of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) includes the former right hon. Lady who was tipped as "the most likely" but then was not. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in Committee and I appreciate that he found it necessary to come in rather late and take rather a long time to make his campain speech for Warrington.
  To return to the subject under discussion, I wish to make just a brief contributions. I sometimes have the impression that if there were more women in the House we might have more contributors to our debates.
  Some years ago, before I was elected to the House, I worked in the National Council of Women, which was carrying out almost simultaneously two surveys, which perhaps showed the balance of concern among women in this country. I shall not repeat all the statistics, as those fortunate enough to be called before me have made it clear, and we all now understand, that nearly half of the working population are women, 65 per cent. of whom are married. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) who chairs the Select Committee on Social Services and has many years experience in this matter, made the point that one in five of those women
  616
  have a responsibility to care for a family. But let us consider also the other four out of five in the 65 per cent. of women who work.
  We should all find it difficult to define exactly why they work. I do not believe that it matters. I share the view of the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that if they want to work they should have the opportunity to do so. She must also realise, however, as I am sure she does, that if they represent 41·8 per cent. of people now in work in this country, at a time of world recession we certainly cannot cushion them from sharing the unemployment total.
  I must make it clear that I do not like to hear certain jobs demeaned by the derision poured upon them by the hon. Member for Thornaby when he referred to low-paid, low-status hairdressing and secretarial jobs. I find that demeaning. Perhaps things will change now—I believe that they will—but I was raised in a fairly tough childhood, in which work was an ethic. There is nothing demeaning about any kind of work. Too often hon. Members seek to divide jobs into those with status and those without. I find that disappointing. If we are to be leaders and set an example, we should show that we believe that all work is valuable. It may be claimed that hairdressing and secretarial work are low paid, but low status they are not, and I do not admire such comments.
  I wish to make two points, and I know that my remarks will be controversial. At this time, when we share with many other industrial nations a high level of unemployment—I say that with feeling, because, although I represent a seat in the South-East, we have 12·3 per cent. unemployment and a large number of women are included in that total—many small businesses in my constituency are facing difficulties. I have received letters and have written letters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about this.
  Those small businesses are struggling to keep open some part-time jobs, which I believe are extremely valuable for many married women in my constituency, but they find themselves placed at a disinct disadvantage when they are informed by the Low Pay Unit or the wages council that they should pay more for that work. All too often, sadly, this results in the loss of a job. I deplore that. Moreover, very often the women themselves are not making the claim for extra money. I do not deny that when the economy is strong and the jobs are available we should fight both for equal pay and for a good rate for every job. Nevertheless, the additional burden placed upon small businesses in a time of recession merely ensures that there are fewer jobs available. Surely none of us wants that.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs said that as a result of legislation we had learnt the unpalatable truth, because, although its intentions were good, it often did the exact opposite. That is the point that I wish to make.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) noted with pleasure that her daughter and young people do not now talk in the same way as their parents did about the need to improve the status of women, because they are confident about it. I have a daughter and two grandchildren. My daughter is also confident about it. That is perhaps because when the National Council of Women undertook its surveys 12 years ago it looked at one case which the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) might find interesting. It showed that women of higher academic quality were being turned

  617
  down and men of lower academic quality were being chosen for training in our best medical schools. That is a terrible waste of enormous talent. Some of these things gradually, painfully and perhaps too slowly are being put right.
  The other survey carried out by the NCW might attract the support of many women, both those who work and those who do not. It looked at the value of the woman in the household in terms of her contribution to the nation's economy. Whatever else we do, we should say that we believe in equal opportunity and the status of women. Goodness knows, most of the women in this place have belonged to organisations for many years, and the direct objective of one in particular has been to improve the status of women.
  My right hon. Friend made an outstanding speech. I have often heard her speak on this subject since I knew her, and she first mentioned in particular the mistakes that we have made in education over the years. I should like to believe that we are now putting some of them right. I often fear that those who offer greatest support for an improvement in the status of women sometimes overstate the case to the point that it creates a powerful head of resistance to it. The status of women has not been enhanced nearly as much as it ought to have been by organised labour. That was one of the few things with which I agreed in the speech of the hon. Member for Thornaby.
  The right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) was worried that we were not taking sufficient account of what the microchip technology would do to work patterns. I believe that it will change work patterns enormously, and I foresee many more part-time and work-sharing jobs. Many trade unions will have to lose their addiction to overtime work.
  I hope that I have not taken too many of the few minutes that remain in the debate. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment that attempts can be made to improve job opportunities for, and the status of, women. However, we must be careful not to follow some of the patterns of the past and do exactly the opposite.
  8.44 pm
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: When I looked at the Order Paper I was surprised to find that, in response to our indictment of the Government's policy towards women, the Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends could only table an amendment saying that:
  "recognising that the needs and aspirations of women can only be achieved within a free and fair society and a healthy economy, welcomes the measures which the Government has taken to achieve these."
  That is a very feeble response and tells us much about the embarrassment of the Government—led, as they are, by a woman Prime Minister—over their treatment of women, with the reduction in their rights, status and economic opportunities. That no doubt explains the Government's "wet" amendment to our motion—if I dare use such a word in relation to the right hon. Lady.
  The Government's economic policies have increased unemployment among women to 29 per cent., although they constitute only 40 per cent. of the work force. That
  618
  proves that a disproportionate burden of the unemployment is borne by women. It is hardly surprising when we look at the way in which unemployment has affected the country. The textile and clothing industries, education, welfare and health services are all areas in which women are mainly to be found.
  The public spending cuts, the Government's failure to give adequate support and protection to industries such as textiles, clothing, and the shoe industry, have led to increased unemployment among women and to loss of part-time opportunities. Even the figure that I quoted from the Equal Opportunities Commission obviously understates the case, as many married women do not register as unemployed, particularly when they lose part-time jobs.
  The Government's economic policies have seriously affected employment opportunities for women. The Government have not only failed to encourage women's opportunities; they have lost opportunities of improving the status and pay of women. The April 1980 survey shows that 4 million adult workers worked a full-time week plus overtime, and were still low-paid. Of these, 2·6 million—65 per cent.—were women. If overtime earnings are excluded, the number of full-time adult low-paid rises to almost 4¾ million.
  On these official figures, one in five full-time adult women were low paid, but well over half of all adult women—57 per cent.—earned low wages. Among manual women workers, three-quarters were low-paid. Taking part-time women workers into account, although the statistics are not very complete, it would appear that the average rate of pay is less than £2 per hour for such women.
  The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) referred to wages councils and to the difficulties that she claimed are faced by small businesses that want to provide opportunities for the employment of women. When we examine what the wages councils lay down as the minimum rates of pay for a full-time working week, we find that these range from £35·50 to £57·60. That is for a full week's work of 40 hours.
  If small businesses expect to employ adult workers at amounts less than that per week they ought to be ashamed of themselves, because those pay levels are already dismally low. Many small businesses are able to avoid paying those amounts because the Wages Inspectorate has been much reduced by the Government and there is no efficient means of checking on the kind of pay that is offered.
  If the Government are seriously concerned to establish a "free and fair society" in which the needs and aspirations of women can be properly recognised, they should take two things into account. They should look seriously at the whole question of low pay and strengthen and extend wages councils to deal with the problem of job segregation. The limitations of the Equal Pay Act have been referred to. I do not want to cover that ground again, but one reason for its limitations is job segregation. In many areas of employment the workers are almost entirely female. There are no men with whom to compare their pay. The Government ought to strengthen the Wages Inspectorate. It ought to be part of the policy of the Labour Party to introduce a statutory minimum wage. That is the only way to provide women with an adequate wage for a full week's work.
  The Government ought also to look at the legislation on equal pay and at the EEC recommendation of equal pay

  619
  for work of equal value. That should be introduced as quickly as possible to ensure that women have a decent standard of living. All too often the woman is the main or sole breadwinner and she should be given a proper wage. Women should not be found largely among the ranks of the low-paid. If the Government were to adopt the policies that we have advocated they might begin to congratulate themselves on doing much to increase opportunities for women and to bring about equality. Their economic policies have served to attack women and to make their working life more difficult as support services for the care of the elderly and children, the provision of meals in school and so on have been withdrawn or made ridiculously expensive. The Government have attacked the economic position of women in society and so failed to provide opportunities for them to fulfil their needs and requirements.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I do not wish to argue with the hon. Lady the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), because this is not the time to debate much of what she said. Her views on wages councils are opposed to mine. If we were to strengthen them we would find that unemployment, particularly of women, would be higher, because many businesses are unable to afford the constant increases in wages, regardless of their profitability. That is not the purpose of the debate.
  I heard with some astonishment that this debate was to take place. As a mere man, may I ask whether we can expect a debate in a few weeks' time on the problems of men? Surely it is against the spirit of all the equal opportunities legislation that there should be a debate on this subject. This is an Opposition Supply day, but I would point out to Labour right hon. and hon. Ladies that if they had a constructive conference, as the Conservative women did only last month, they could discuss much more profitable subjects, such as employment for women. That was a first-class conference and I recommend to the Labour Party that it should engage in such discussion rather than in the internecine strife that we have witnessed.
  Problems affecting women have arisen not just in the last two years. The Government have moved further down the road of equality than many other Governments. A man is now entitled to claim family income supplement. He is not yet entitled to retire at 60, and from what I have heard no one on the Opposition Benches has yet advocated that. Possibly that should be introduced when we can afford it. If not, why should we not argue in a debate like this, without rancour on either side, that women should retire at 65, as men do? Equality must, I suggest, work both ways.
  There are two spheres in which the Government have a record to be proud of: maternity welfare and taxation. Next year the maternity grant will be made non-contributory—a long overdue measure of reform. The Employment Act 1980 gave women the right to take time off to attend pre-natal clinics. That was a fight that was only just won, but it was won.
  The Government should go further down this road as soon as possible. The Select Committee on Social Services reported last year on the problem of perinatal mortality, and pointed out how money could be saved in the long run, and children's lives and happiness assured in the short run, by implementing its modest recommendations and taking a much more robust line on antenatal welfare. Mothers are
  620
  still going to clinics that are like chicken factories. They resent it. The women who most need care are the most reluctant to use the clinics. The result is handicap and tragedy on a significant scale.
  I do not believe that the Government have accepted as wholeheartedly as some of us on both sides of the House would have wished the recommendations of the Select Committee. Everything costs money, health not least, but there can be few more worthwhile and humanitarian investments than the prevention of child death and child handicap.
  We can be proud of the improvement in the taxation treatment of war widows. Over the years we have constantly been asked to make this improvement, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first Budget gave war widows the opportunity of having a tax-free pension.
  Apart from the treatment of women on widowhood and at the maternity stage, there is no special case for women or for debates on women. What is needed, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs said, is a change in attitude, not least on the part of women. That is a matter not for legislation but for women themselves. If a woman wants to be a coal miner, so be it. It is not a matter for Parliament. Society must treat men and women as equals, but it does not yet do so. Even in this place we have a room that is labelled "Strictly lady Members only". Why?
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Because it is a lavatory.
  Mr. Alexander: It is not a lavatory; there are those as well.
  Dr. Summerskill: How does the hon. Gentleman know that? It is guesswork.
  Mr. Alexander: I have to admit that I peeped in. It is full of desks. I should like to see a room in this place labelled "Strictly male Members only". We must have equality, and it must work both ways.
  The change in attitudes must start with education, and that is happening slowly now. When I was at school it was unusual for boys to take cookery lessons or for the girls to play cricket. Now girls with a mathemaical bent are encouraged to go on to be engineers and are not thought of as freaks if they want to design roads and bridges and rockets that go to the moon. I want the optimum for women. They must be helped to achieve their objectives and ambitions. The Government do nothing to discourage them. However, at times women are their worst enemies. Women are people. Government policies damage them no more than they do men. In many cases they get special treatment. If they want equality, they must not constantly cry "inequality". Therefore, I hope that the motion will be defeated and that the amendment will be wholeheartedly accepted.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I am always under a special sense of obligation in the House, because my predecessor was a distinguished female Member of Parliament. She demonstrated two things that are of immense value to my constituents. She fought hard to improve the role of women and was active on issues such as abortion, contraception and equal pay. She also demonstrated that it was crucial that all women should play an equal part in matters connected with world

  621
  peace, war, disarmament, unemployment and the general run of the economy. She was an example not only to female hon. Members, but to all hon. Members.
  Women are bearing the brunt of the recession that the Government have helped to produce. They are doing so in three ways. They are losing their jobs more quickly than men. They are losing the services on which they, rather than men, tend to rely. In addition, it has not yet been mentioned that married women bear the weight of the depressions and problems that go with a loss of money when husbands become unemployed and with trying to sustain unemployed husbands or children who cannot find jobs. That burden is generally borne more by mothers than by fathers.
  A disproportionate number of women are losing their jobs, because they tend to be employed in what society regards as marginal jobs in both the public and the private sectors. Many women do part-time work. During the recession such work has taken a bigger beating than full-time employment. As a disproportionately high number of women are employed in certain businesses and services, they are in the direct firing line of the Government's policies. For example, women are predominantly employed in the provision of school meals, in running nursery schools, in the home-help service, in the teaching professions and other public sector jobs. Such jobs are in the direct firing line of the Government's deliberate policies. The Government have intentionally cut those jobs.
  Women tend to depend more than men on many of the services that are being deliberately cut. The provision of those services affects families. The Government have cut services for children, for the old and for other relatives. In addition, they have cut health services. If such services disappear, women will suffer. In our society women are expected to look after old ladies who are no longer being cared for by the social services. Women will be expected to look after sick members of the family for a bit longer if they cannot get into hospital or receive the treatment that they deserve.
  One other aspect is frequently ignored. Services, particularly those affecting pre-school care and schooling, are used to give women the opportunity to work. The demise of such services curtails that opportunity. As a disproportionate number of women use public transport to get to work, the transport cuts that are being experienced all over the country will, in turn, have a disproportionate effect upon them.
  In many ways the most important point is that women bear the brunt when a family has to cope with adversity. It is no good millionaire Tory Front-Bench speakers smiling. Women bear the brunt of poverty. They bear the brunt when the husband is out of work and there is less money coming into the house. They have to put up with the problems of a man who has lost most of his self-respect, who may be mooning around and severely depressed, causing problems for the wife and the children because of his behaviour, which is understandable but difficult to cope with. There is a problem that the millionaire Front Bench spokesmen of the Tory party will not have to deal with when their children leave public school, and that is the problem that the parents of 100,000
  622
  young people in London are coping with, trying to explain to the children what a rotten society they are living in when they cannot get a job on leaving school.
  All those things impinge heavily on women. There is also the direct attack on women through the Employment and Training Bill, which involves their right to work and makes it more difficult for them to have jobs and carry out their duties for their family.
  There has also been an indirect attack on women by the regressive nature of the new national insurance contributions. Many women are poorly paid. As a result of the changes in April this year, when a lower-paid person is over one of the lower thresholds national insurance contribution is not paid on the small amount over the threshold, but the increased contribution is paid on the whole amount up to the threshold as well.
  There is a general Government attack that affects women and those least able to look after themselves. Organisations such as trade unions, advice services and law centres designed to help those who find it difficult to help themselves are under deliberate attack from the Government. We must remember that the discrimination against women structurally pervades our society. It is combined with a structural discrimination on grounds of race. Above all, the predominant discrimination is still class discrimination. Where there is a combination of all those facets, as I see in my constituency, with Bengali women married to Bengalis working for abysmal pay in restaurants in my area, these people are at the bottom of the pile, because they are discriminated against on grounds of class, sex and race. We must do something about that.
  We shall not solve the problem by attacking the Government on their response to the general world recession. Those who are in work have a duty to look after those who are out of work and to look after themselves. They must also be prepared to look after everyone, including women, in the technological revolution that faces us. The expected technological changes are likely to wipe out what are now regarded as some of the reasonably well-paid women's white collar jobs. New technology represents a future threat to women's jobs whatever party is in power. We must concentrate attention on looking after the badly off because of structural problems in society. That means predominantly looking after women, especially working-class women, because they are suffering most from the recession. We shall never get that from the Government, because they are determined to attack the working class and they will attack it at its most vulnerable point, which is working-class women.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You probably do not know, but I have been present from the first minutes of the debate. I have not missed a speech. I make no complaint about not being called, except to make the point that there have been six speeches from the Labour side of the House. It is our Supply day. We chose the subject. It is our time. Those six speeches have taken 85 minutes. Three representatives of minority parties, representing 20 hon. Members or thereabouts—they are a small and unrepresentative minority of the House and the country—have taken 46 minutes. This is a great abuse of the time of the House.
  I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will take up this matter in higher quarters. It concerns the Chair. The minority parties should be told that they will be allowed one speech in a debate. They can fight it out for

  623
  themselves. That all the minority parties should expect Members to be called in every debate is nonsense and an injustice to some hon. Members who attend more regularly than most representatives of those parties.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the strong representations that the hon. Gentleman makes. I assure him that his remarks, which have been recorded, will be drawn to the attention of the proper authorities.
  9.10 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: It must be unprecedented for the House to have a debate in which all Front Bench speakers are women Members. To those Conservative Members who have commented on this fact as a sexist arrangement and who have referred, in private, to a monstrous regiment of women, I would merely say that it serves to correct, in a small and token way, the imbalance of tens of thousands of debates that must have taken place since Parliament was established during which hon. Gentlemen have dominated both Front Benches.
  It is to the credit of the Opposition that this important and long-overdue debate has been initiated. In opposing our motion, and in an effort to put the Government in a good light, there has been repeated reference from the Conservative Benches to the fact that the Conservative Party has produced the first woman Prime Minister, as if that alone justifies the Government's rather feeble amendment. Instead of being a matter for pride, it is all the more inexcusable and shameful that her Government's policies have damaged the rights, status and opportunities of women.
  There must be millions of women who voted Tory two years ago in the firm belief that a Prime Minister of their sex would have their interests at heart and would promote their welfare with a special understanding and knowledge of their problems that is denied to male Prime Ministers. How wrong they were then, but how wise they are now. They will not make that mistake next time round.
  During the general election campaign the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister took advantage of being female by claiming that this had given her special experience on how to budget widely for a household and therefore for the country, but after taking office she proceeded to double the rate of inflation. Even today it is still higher than it was when she took office. I suggest that she became leader of the Conservative Party not because she is a woman, but in spite of the fact that she is a woman. We are led to believe that she became leader having been discovered by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) and inspired by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). She was then judged, in the face of formidable competition, as being the best person for the job.
  That is no substitute for positive Government policies that will defend and extend the rights of all women throughout the country. These have been conspicuously lacking in the past two years as our long and detailed motion, the contents of which most Conservative Members have ignored, points out.
  The Prime Minister has herself been guilty of saying that she owes nothing to women's lib. I am sure that she is right, because the women's lib movement and legislation to help women are primarily intended to help the great mass of women, not the small minority who have the ability and opportunity to enjoy higher education and to enter the professions.
  624
  My hon. Friends have emphasisd that the most obvious and unacceptable effect of deliberate Government policy on women today is the fact that women are prime victims of the massive unemployment that affects the whole country. They are becoming unemployed at a faster rate than men, and to a disproportionate extent. I regret that many prejudiced employers hold the view that working women are in some way expendable and that during a recession it is the women who should go to the wall first.
  The Labour Party believes that the concept of equality of opportunity between men and women involves the right of everyone to work, regardless of sex. If a woman, through choice or necessity, or both, wants to work outside the home and to provide for her own needs and that of her family, she should not be prevented or deterred from doing so by the Government, by employers or by the pressure of so-called public opinion as voiced through the media. There should be no economic, legislative or social barriers to prevent women from going out to work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) told us about the sexist pronouncements of the Secretary of State for Social Services, and even one from the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State who is to wind up the debate—the feeling that it would perhaps be better for women with children to stay at home. She said that perhaps in years to come the country would look at it in that way. Whatever happened to Tory freedom of choice, if that is the feeling that exists on the Conservative Benches? It reflects a reactionary and totally outmoded attitude to the rights of women.
  The traditional role of the sexes is being challenged all the time, and the Conservative Party cannot hold back that challenge and turn back the clock, even if it wants to do so. It is no longer true that every man is a breadwinner and every woman is a man's dependant and that if she goes out to work it is only to earn a few extra pounds for some luxuries.
  Let us not forget all the single women who are self-supporting and may have children or dependent elderly relatives, the divorced and separated women and widows. They work outside the home because they have to do so to survive. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, single and married women, with or without children, have gone out to work in the industrial towns of the North. In my constituency of Halifax there is an extermely high proportion of working women, as there always has been. There, male wages are low, and an additional wage is not a luxury but an essential to maintain the family budget. Today, as has been said repeatedly in the debate, women comprise the majority of the work force in the low-paid jobs, such as textiles and the clothing industries, which have been hit by Government policies. They also occupy the majority of jobs in teaching, nursing and many unskilled jobs.
  The Government have restricted women's right to work by their economic policies, which have hit particularly women working part-time or those who have not been long with their firm. There is also the hidden unemployment. The true figures among women are not known, because many thousands do not sign on, knowing that they are not eligible for unemployment benefit. Since the Government took office the number of women registered unemployed has nearly doubled. At the same time, deliberate Government policy has amended the Employment Protection Act and made changes in the maternity provisions. It was designed—or, if it was not so designed,

  625
  this is the effect that it has had—to make it extremely difficult for women to return to work after having a child, thus causing unemployment. The rights to paid maternity leave, training opportunities and apprenticeships have been reduced, so that for women they are now almost non-existent.
  Apart from being hit by unemployment, women are the prime victims of the Government's public expenditure cuts. The cuts are eroding and mutilating community services throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) made an eloquent plea on behalf of the Health Service in general and the obstetrics service in particular.
  Mr. John Major: How are the Government damaging the Health Service when they are increasing expenditure in real terms by 4 per cent?
  Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman were to ask any hon. Member what is happening to the Health Service and social services in his constituency, he would be told that the services are being cut. That is what matters.
  Cuts have been made in the provision of nursery education in creches and playgroups. It is accepted that education for the under-fives is as essential a part of a child's development as any other five years in a child's early life. It is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. It is a necessity for many mothers who have to do a job outside the home. One in eight of all families in Britain is a one-parent family.
  Cuts in day centres for the elderly and handicapped and in school meal provision have their effect upon women in the family, who bear the additional, unpaid workload and responsibility. They are being used to fill a gap left by disappearing statutory health and social services. The Government are under an obligation to provide such statutory services, and yet they are asking women to take them over, bit by bit.
  Few Members have mentioned the effect of the new immigration rules. They were introduced soon after the Government took office. They discriminate blatantly against women who are lawfully settled here but who were not born here and whose parents were not born here. They cannot be joined by a foreign husband or fiancé. As a consequence they have become second-class citizens.
  Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Lady must be aware of arranged marriages. Is she in favour of them?
  Dr. Summerskill: The Conservative excuse for the rules is that the arranged marriages are an abuse. We introduced measures to deal with such abuse. Just over 300 people have been sent out of the country as a result of arranged marriages. That means that the rules have been introduced to get rid of about 300 foreign husbands.
  The Conservative Party promised firm measures against immigration. The rules, which are racist in purpose, are sexist in effect. Throughout the general election campaign the Prime Minister proclaimed that people lawfully settled here would have nothing to fear. These women are settled here, although they were not born here. The new rules are offensive, divisive and heartless as much today as when they were introduced.
  Many women may have dependent or elderly parents, or other close relatives in Britain. They may wish to stay
  626
  in Britain for health or financial reasons, or may simply want to live in their own country. Yet the Home Secretary has described the new rules as justifiable discrimination. That is a contradiction in terms. He then said that, in accordance with the customs of Europe and the Indian Sub-continent, the abode of the husband should normally be viewed as the natural place of residence for a family. The Home Secretary is living in another age.
  That view is a narrow-minded and outmoded stereotyping of the female role. It represents an obsolescent philosophy which, I am afraid, still exists among Conservative Members. About 20,000 non-British women entered Britain last year to settle here, to use our social services, to travel on our public transport and to take jobs. Many of them will produce children. Those women can enter Britain as free as a bird because they are joining men. They are foreign women, but are called dependants of the men already here. Men have an absolute right to bring in wives from anywhere in the world. The rules are wholly illogical and an attack on human rights, because they discriminate between men and a certain category of women regarding their right to live in their own country with whoever they choose to marry.
  The Government stand condemned, not only for the things that they have done, but for the way in which they have neglected to promote positively the status of women. I have examined the 1979 election manifestos of the three main parties. The Liberal manifesto had a special section entitled "Equal Opportunities for Women and Men". The Labour manifesto had a special section entitled "Equality for Women". I searched in vain through the Conservative manifesto for any mention of women's rights or opportunities. However, I found a special section devoted to animal welfare.
  What do Conservative Members feel that they have positively done during the past two years for women? Let them look at the two Acts that the Labour Government succeeded in putting on the statute book, and of which they are rightly proud—the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970. I had a special responsibility at the Home Office for the first of those Acts. It is time that both Acts, having been fully in operation for some years, were reviewed and amended.
  Only last November I was told by a Minister at the Department of Employment that he was generally satisfied with the operation of the Equal Pay Act and had no plans to amend it. Yet the European Commission has alleged that the Act does not comply with the terms of the EEC equal pay directive, which applies the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and many others have pointed out that our Equal Opportunities Commission, which has been studying the operation of the two Acts, has sent to Ministers 25 recommended changes which would radically strengthen the Acts and lead to greater equality between the sexes. When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps she will let us know the Government's view on the 25 recommendations, which I am sure they have studied carefully. The Equal Pay Act 1970 is in need of more urgent amending than the other Act.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has said that no further progress can be made on women's pay unless the Act is amended. It has said categorically that women's wages are only 73 per cent. of men's wages. I have always held the view that the most unacceptable form of

  627
  discrimination and exploitation is not to pay a person the wage for the job. Many of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), have pointed out how much lower is the wage of the women in their constituencies who work in what are traditionally called women's jobs, and where there is no man's wage to make a comparison.
  On one occasion an employer took me round a factory that was full of women. I saw no man working there, save for the man who showed me round the factory. I asked him how much the women were earning, and he said "£45 a week, which is not bad for a woman". That is an attitude that is only too commonly found.
  Two out of every five British workers are women. They make a vital contribution to the economy. The Government will be investing in employment if they ensure that women are kept in work that they need to do and want to do.
  Further inequalities concern the taxation and social security systems. I agree that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 omitted these major aspects of inequality in the treatment of women. However, they were deliberate omissions. We decided that it would not be possible to incorporate into the Act two extremely complicated legislative proposals, both of which, unlike the Sex Discrimination Act, would involve a great deal of money. The reform of taxation and social security law would mean at least two separate major Bills passing through the House. However, there is no excuse for the Government's not applying themselves to changes in the relevant legislation.
  Taxation law continues to penalise working women. The basic unit for tax purposes should be the individual, whether that individual be a man or a woman. Individuals should be treated as equal and separate. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that she will tell us of the response that has been received to the Government's Green Paper on taxation and the action that is being taken to put forward some definite proposals.
  We know that there is strong feeling that there should be an equal retirement age for the sexes as soon as that is practicable. In my view, there should be equal contributions to and equal rights under the scheme.
  The issue of rights and status for women is not peculiar to the Labour Party or even to the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is an international issue. For two years I served as the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Status of Women Commission. The result of its work was the United Nations Convention on Discrimination Against Women. The United Kingdom has still not signed and ratified the convention. Britain and the Irish Republic are the only European countries that have refused to do so, yet it is the advanced developed countries that should be setting an example in providing legal, social and economic equality for the sexes.
  Why has the convention not been signed? In a written answer to a parliamentary question I was told by a Foreign Office Minister that possible areas of difficulty in relation to present practices were still being identified. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what those areas of difficulty are and what action she is taking to solve the problems.
  Discrimination is usually directed at minorities in any community, but women comprise the majority of the United Kingdom's population. However, centuries of
  628
  prejudice have combined to create a society in which women often behave like second-class citizens. That is because women are so often treated as such.
  Women cannot be taken out of politics. That seemed to be the suggestion that the Minister for Consumer Affairs was making throughout her speech. Every suggestion in the motion requires political action. I agree that legislation cannot abolish the prejudice, but it can create a climate of opinion in which prejudice finds it hard to flourish. It can certainly have the effect of abolishing inequalities.
  Ever since Annie Besant organised the London matchgirls' strike in 1888, through to the suffragettes and the present day women's movements, the battle has been long and hard. We must not forget the men who took part—John Stuart Mill, H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw. There is still much to achieve. The whole of society can be enriched in the process of that achievement. Tennyson said:
  "The woman's cause is man's: they rise or sink together".
  We condemn the Government for damaging the hard-won progress that has been made towards providing equal rights, status and opportunities for women. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, and in fact the whole House, to support the motion.
  9.31 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): This has been a long, interesting and diverse debate. At times a number of strange statements have been made, but the debate has been stimulating in part. There were one or two occasions when one might even have described the debate as hilarious. Labour Members were keen to laugh at one hon. Member who contributed to the debate. I hope that, above all, the debate has shown the determination of the House to work to change attitudes in our society towards equal opportunities for women.
  Let us make no mistake. It is not only men's attitudes that prevent women from having equal opportunities; it is sometimes the attitudes amongst women. Women have to be willing as well as equipped to move away from traditional female areas of education, employment and other pursuits. As women, we have to be prepared to accept the unusual challenges that can clear the path to new opportunities.
  I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner). She was looking to the future and realised that always going back over the past would not serve the cause of women, provided that we learnt the lesson of going too quickly or in a not sufficiently considered manner in certain legal requirements.
  We must get rid of the prejudices in society. We know that that is not an easy task. It is a combination of the determination and positive effort that I believe is present in this country. It is now coming to the fore largely as a result of better education for women since the 1944 Act. Many of those women are now in professional positions and are taking up positions of leadership, but still not enough. It is a question of opening closed eyes and minds to the talents and abilities that abound, and to the needs and hopes of more than half the population.
  I pay tribute to all those women who accept the challenges. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many of them. There are those who work positively and creatively to improve the opportunities—for

  629
  example, those who are publicly appointed to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has done some valuable things, although I know that some of my hon. Friends have doubts about it in all its aspects. However, it has provided a focus for many women's hopes.
  We must all seek the opportunities. That is the responsibility not just of lady Members of the House but of Parliament as a whole, and it is a responsibility for the country to provide the best opportunities for women to use the training that is available, and further to extend that training and those opportunities.
  I pay tribute to the Conservative Party's women's organisation. This year it has again played an important role in educating some of its membership and people outside the organisation by undertaking some valuable research throughout the country for its conference in May. As volunteers, the women in that organisation are providing the leadership that can open closed eyes.
  We must also help to change attitudes. In The Times today, Frances Gibb says of discrimination and lack of opportunity:
  "The biggest stumbling block in all this is still that of attitudes."
  We may have special problems because of the recession, but for the future it is a question of opening eyes and changing minds.
  The Labour Party is clearly concerned with developing its policy towards women. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), as chairman of the party's home policy committee, has asked for greater consideration to be given to the views of women. In passing, I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the right hon. Gentleman a swift recovery from his illness. In his letter he says that the party must emphasise how important it is for all aspects of policy fully to reflect the aims and perspectives of women, and that women should not be confined to work on so-called women's issues. For once I agree with him. As the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) said, we all too often confine ourselves to women's issues, and we must break away from that. I believe that all women Members and those women who would like to be here wish to do so.
  There are other signs that women are being encouraged to make a greater contribution. There are 300 groups that encourage women to prepare themselves to play a role in public life, irrespective of party politics. Appointments now being made show that the Government are at long last improving dramatically the opportunities for women to participate. The figures have dramatically increased in the past two years, particularly in areas where women are confident of being able to use their experience. As more doors open, they will branch into other areas.
  We are not always aware of who these able women are. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs for increasing the proportion of women appointed. The number has increased from 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. in 1977–78 and 1978–79 to 31 per cent. and 29 per cent. in 1979–80 and 1980–81. That is a significant improvement, although much remains to be done, and we need to know more about the women who are willing to contribute. The Government must provide the framework, but it is up to women to take advantage of the opportunities through education and training.
  630
  If I do not have time to answer all the points raised I shall write to hon. Members about the substantive ones. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) mentioned the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which we have not yet signed. Our consideration has necessarily taken time. The convention covers an exceptionally wide field, so a number of Departments are involved. We also have an exceptional constitutional complexity. We have to consult the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and all the dependent territories, and we have to deal with more than one legal system even within Britain. The prospective change in our nationality legislation will help to sort out some of the outstanding problems. I repeat, however, that we have not concluded that we cannot sign. We are actively pursuing our consultations in the hope that it will prove possible to do so. I trust that we shall come to that decision soon.
  Another issue raised in the debate was the difficult area of nationality and immigration. It has been a matter of long debate over recent years how we may best deal with the problem of giving fair treatment to people who have settled in this country and made it their home, and to second and third generation immigrants. Government after Government have talked about the responsibility to clarify and amend the law. The Labour Government produced a Green Paper on nationality in 1977, but it fell to this Government to make the necessary changes that have so recently been debated. We heard in today's debate how unhappy many people are about nationality and immigration.
  I understand some of the fears and I do not seek to belittle them. Nevertheless, under the new nationality Bill, a mother will for the first time be able to pass on her British nationality to her child born overseas, which has never been possible before. That is a positive step forward, which should not be ignored.
  The hon. Members for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and Halifax commented on changes in the immigration rules concerning husbands or fiancés. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be considering what changes need to be made in immigration rules already approved by the House in the light of the new nationality Bill when it becomes law. He will note what has been said in this debate and will consider in his review any changes that should be made with a view to securing equal treatment. Any such changes will, of course, be brought before the House. I appreciate the great concern about nationality and immigration issues as they affect women and I shall ensure that the comments made in this debate are brought to the personal attention of my right hon. Friend.
  The major part of the debate has been concentrated on women's employment. I should say at the outset that the Government are firmly committed to a policy of equal opportunity for women and are doing all that they can to encourage employers, workers and unions to give practical effect to that policy. Ministers have said that there can be no question of discouraging women from working in order to ease the unemployment situation for men. It would be politically and economically wrong to do so.
  In a letter to the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who has explained to me that he can no longer be present in the Chamber, the Prime Minister said:
  "I cannot accept that it is right that any adult should be disqualified from taking work which may be available because of their age, sex or marital status".

  631
  That stands. Equally, however, Ministers have rejected the reverse, that is to say, discrimination in favour of women by setting targets or quotas for men's jobs as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest was the answer. As we sadly know in other fields, setting quotas is by no means a guarantee that we shall achieve what we set out to do. I certainly do not believe that it would be in the interests of women to set targets or quotas in different industries.
  The Government have said that they are concerned to make full use of the contribution that women can make to the economy. There are many ways in which this must be done, particularly in more skilled and technical areas of work and in industrial management, where women are very much a minority. That is being pursued in a number of ways.
  The hon. Member for Halifax asked about the Equal Pay Act 1970. That Act has worked well towards eliminating discriminatory rates of pay. Women are making progress, although that progress is rather slow in some industries. Nevertheless, levels of earnings are rising, although there is still some way to go. The Equal Opportunities Commission has a statutory responsibility to keep the working of the Act under review and it submitted proposals for its amendment earlier this year. Those proposals are now under active consideration by the Department of Employment. As soon as there is anything to be explained to the House about them, that will certainly occur, and I shall bring that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  I believe that the Sex Discrimination Act has largely removed overt discrimination in advertising and created a greater awareness and knowledge of the principle of equal opportunity. However, there is still widespread ignorance of the Act on both sides of industry. We hope that the EOC, which has this as a primary task, will be able to work further towards the elimination of discrimination as well as the provision of equality of opportunity.
  The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) referred to homeworkers. The Government recognise that there is anxiety about the possible exploitation of homeworkers that occurs in certain areas. There is no doubt some justification for that claim, although research recently carried out by the Department of Employment suggests that certain activities, including some clerical occupations, are nowadays carried out by homeworkers, where the pay is quite high.
  The situation has changed, but there is a great lack of hard evidence about the practice of homeworking in general in modern conditions. The Government are therefore engaged in further widespread research, which is expected to provide the answers to a number of the questions that have been raised in the House about homeworking, on the basis of a national and representative sample. We shall then be in a very much better position to assess the situation and to decide what action is required.
  In the meantime, some of the traditional trades that employ homeworkers, such as clothing and toy manufacturing, are covered by wages councils, which fix minimum rates of pay. As in the past, the Wages Inspectorate will continue to check the pay of homeworkers in those trades and will investigate any complaints of excessively low pay.
  The Department of Employment has introduced many measures to try to help solve the problems of unemployment, but when I look at the figures for female
  632
  unemployment I realise that they are not as chronic across the country as a whole as some hon. Members might have us believe. They are specifically hard in many areas—that one must accept—but in May this year, female unemployment stood at 700,000 compared with 1·8 million registered males. That represented 7·2 per cent. of the total number of women in work or seeking work.
  As hon. Members have said, the figure probably underestimates total female unemployment. However, many women do not wish to register, and the real level of unemployment is much closer to the figure that I have mentioned than some hon. Members would have us believe.
  A high proportion of women are still employed in Britain compared with our major competitor countries, which face exactly the same problems of recession—in some areas worse problems—than we do. We must realise that vast changes have taken place. Fifty years ago only 10 per cent. of married women went out to work. Today the figure is nearly 50 per cent.
  A number of hon. Members referred to training in general. They also talked specifically about training in relation to the new technology. The Manpower Services Commission assists the training of more than 7,000 people a year in the computer-related occupations under the training and skills programme, TOPS and the threshold programme. A company called JPL, which was founded in 1962 specifically to use the pool of skilled women who had previously worked full-time in the data processing industry, has done exceptionally well. It is now a flourishing enterprise and a great success.
  Many hon. Members have commented upon the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The remarks of my right hon. Friend were taken out of context. Young children depend on their mothers and it is no good any of us trying to get away from that rather basic fact. Yes, there may be a time when people at large believe that better mothering might result from mothers being at home. In a recent survey, 85 per cent. of the mothers responding said that mums with very young children should be at home. We are talking about what they would most like to see, even if for many of them it is not today economically possible.
  I am sure that it would be better for many young children to have that close link. That does not mean that I am not fully behind, or that the Government are not fully behind, the provision of opportunity of choice for those women—provided that they realise their responsibility for young children. We must have our eyes wide open and recognise the responsibilities that a young mother puts on herself if she does not have to go out to work but nevertheless chooses to do so. The children are the future of the country and they need that support of the mother. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear no more of the sort of comment that the hon. Member for Crewe was making on that subject.
  I was asked about taxation. This is the first Government to have produced any discussion document about the taxation of married women so that we have the chance to look at the differences that exist in that respect. Women can, of course, elect to be separately assessed for taxation, but that does not change the overall taxation problem that married women face under the present system. We have to see whether a more radical change in the direction of taxing all husbands and wives independently would help

  633
  the women who want that independent assessment, and whether it would help them to obtain what they are seeking to achieve.
  I should like to deal briefly with some comments that were made about cutbacks in services. Nursery education was mentioned by many hon. Members. In January 1980, 43 per cent. of 3-year-old and 4-year-old children in the United Kingdom were receiving nursery education, compared with 17 per cent. 10 years earlier. If we count also the 4-year-olds who now attend primary school because of falling rolls, we find that the figure in 1980 was 46 per cent. of all 4-year-olds. The very fact that the number of children in nursery schools has increased this year by 5,900 shows that it is untrue to say that we are not opening up opportunities for those children. The pre-school playgroup movement also plays a valuable part in that respect.
  I deal briefly with education. Many more girls are now, thank goodness, studying science subjects. One of the problems that there has been for women in attaining equal opportunity to compete with men in equal work has been that the syllabus has been oriented against those subjects that they need desperately if they are to compete. The new moves for the core curriculum are vital if we are to give girls the proper opportunity to benefit from the scientific and mathematical subjects that are available.
  I must bring my remarks to a close, although there is much more that could be said in the debate. With regard to the health services and social security, we have increased the amount of money for personal social services by 4 per cent. over the last two years. We are increasing the number of nurses in the Health Service and are taking careful note of what the Select Committee said about the wish to reduce perinatal mortality. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) mentioned smoking by women. We hope that women will take more care of their own health in their antenatal period, so that their children will be born healthy.
  On the question of equal treatment for women, my hon. Friends have repeated time and again those measures that we have brought into law this year that will enable women to achieve equal opportunity with men in social security. I hope that hon. Members will realise, in the Prime Minister's words, that there is a continuing role to play to eliminate sex discrimination and to promote equal opportunity.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 168.

  Division No. 219]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allaun, Frank

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

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Davidson, Arthur

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

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

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

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dobson, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dormand, Jack

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Cook, Robin F.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Cowans, Harry

  Dunnett, Jack

  634

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Eadie, Alex

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

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

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  English, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foster, Derek

  Race, Reg

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

  Richardson, Jo

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Ginsburg, David

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Graham, Ted

  Rooker, J. W.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

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

  Sheerman, Barry

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Soley, Clive

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Homewood, William

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hooley, Frank

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Horam, John

  Stoddart, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  John, Brynmor

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Torney, Tom

  Kerr, Russell

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Welsh, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Whitlock, William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Winnick, David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  McElhone, Frank

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Wright, Sheila

  McNamara, Kevin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Meacher, Michael

  Mr. Frank R. White and

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mr. George Morton.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Dover, Denshore

  Banks, Robert

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Elliott, Sir William

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Blackburn, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fox, Marcus

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Buck, Antony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gow, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Greenway, Harry

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Grylls, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hayhoe, Barney

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hooson, Tom

  Cope, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Crouch, David

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  635

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lang, Ian

  Renton, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Silvester, Fred

  Loveridge, John

  Sims, Roger

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Squire, Robin

  Major, John

  Stanley, John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stevens, Martin

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Thompson, Donald

  Moate, Roger

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Molyneaux, James

  Trippier, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Waddington, David

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Wakeham, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Myles, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wall, Patrick

  Needham, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Nelson, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Newton, Tony

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wheeler, John

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Osborn, John

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Parris, Matthew

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  'That this House, recognising that the needs and aspirations of women can only be achieved within a free and fair society and a healthy economy, welcomes the measures which the Government has taken to achieve these.'.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the course of the previous debate the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised a point of order on the selection of speakers. He misled the House on the question of the participation in the debate of the minority parties. The facts are not as he related to the House. Out of about five and a half hours' debate the minority parties took up 46 minutes. In addition, they have 40 hon. Members and not, as the hon. Gentleman said, fewer than 20. I hope that those facts will be taken into consideration.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Chair considers this matter I hope that it will be borne in mind that in a Supply clay debate, belonging to the Labour Party, 46 minutes,—[Interruption.] The debate was initiated by the Labour Party. Judging by the number of Conservative Members in the Chamber, the debate certainly belongs to the Labour Party. The minority parties accounted for 46 minutes of debate. As a result, several hon. Members who had sat in the Chamber from the beginning to the end of the debate were not called. Others who had not been in the Chamber came in, were called instantly, and spoke for 21 minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The selection of speakers is a matter for the Chair. I assure hon. Members that we have the record of today's speakers. It will be carefully checked and all the representations that have been made will be given consideration.

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

  PROJECTS (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7972/80 on the environmental assessment of projects; and welcomes the Government's policy of encouraging environmental assessment within the general principles of the existing law.—[Mr. Cope.]
  Question agreed to.

De Lorean Motor Co.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
10.13 pm
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I hope that I shall not be out of order if, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr. Speaker for having selected this subject for the Adjournment debate. It involves matters of some importance from the point of view of parliamentary accountability.
On 22 May my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, announced that the Government had agreed to provide for the De Lorean Motor Co. a
"time-limited guarantee of £7 million."
The justification for that decision was that
"Part of the company's office accommodation was destroyed by … a petrol bomb attack on 5 May 1981. No damage was caused to"
the production facilities
"but for some while following the fire manning and productivity levels were severely reduced … The disruption of production … has adversely affected the company's cash flow."—[Official Report, 22 May 1980; Vol. 5, c. 185.]
That, alas, is an experience that has been suffered by many companies in Northern Ireland over the past 10 years. Taxpayer funds are regularly available for compensation payments for such damage, but I shall be interested to learn from my hon. Friend whether any of them at any time was ever offered a £7 million loan guarantee, or anything like it.
In the case of this corporation, the taxpayer had already committed upwards of £70 million and the House of Commons had twice been assured that all claims on the public purse had been exhausted.
At the beginning of August 1980, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us that the De Lorean corporation had agreed in writing that the provision of the £14 million loan that my right hon. Friend had announced the day before
"removes the obligation, contained in the original agreement"—
signed between Mr. De Lorean and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—
"to consider further applications"—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 761.]—
for taxpayers' subventions to this business.
However, six months later my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced that the Northern Ireland Office had had second thoughts. Early in February he told us
"I have now agreed in principle to the provision of a time-limited guarantee for commercial loans of up to £10 million, subject to certain acknowledgements which record the company's acceptance that neither the Northern Ireland Development Agency nor the Department of Commerce has any financial obligations towards the company".—[Official Report, 12 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 973.]
In the light of those double assurances given on the Floor of the House, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Northern Ireland Office has a somewhat frivolous attitude towards its accountability to the House for the sums it disburses in the name of the United Kingdom taxpayer.
But that is not all. In the case of this latest douceur, there seems to be some implication that if the De Lorean corporation were to abandon its operations in Belfast that would constitute a victory for the IRA. On that basis, the taxpayers' obligation is totally and utterly open-ended.
638
Mr. De Lorean apparently has only to cry "Your money or my factory" and the Northern Ireland Office will cough up once again. I hope that my hon. Friend will refute that, although in the light of experience one must agree that any such assurance given to the House would be conditional on subsequent events.
It is important to recognise that we are considering one of the wildest speculations ever presented for parliamentary endorsement since the days of the South Sea Bubble. Mr. De Lorean touted around the most plausible Governments of the world his scheme to build a gull-wing sports car to challenge, single-handed, the combined might of Ford, General Motors, American Motors and others in the United States market, and none of them would look at it.
Even the Southern Irish, who are not exactly slouches in spreading around their taxpayers' money, reckoned that the proposed balance of risks and rewards was too heavily tilted against the taxpayer for them to look at it.
That is hardly surprising in view of the fact that Mr. De Lorean was proposing to subscribe 4 per cent. of the capital and collect 70 per cent. of the equity. However, he then met the right hon. Member for Barnsley, who was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He must have reckoned that there are no suckers on earth like suckers grown in Barnsley. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. De Lorean had been obliged to warn potential American investors that none of them should invest unless they were prepared to lose the whole of their minimum $25,000 investment, the right hon. Gentleman threw us in for £52 million for starters. Needless to say, it was our money and not his.
That was the position when the present Government took office. I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that we should call it a day, pay whatever compensation was needed to buy out the commitments of the right hon. Member for Barnsley and write it off to experience. I was told that it would be far cheaper to go on. That is what we have been told continually and at repeated intervals over Concorde. We know what has happened in that respect.
We are told that the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland is bleak and would be rendered bleaker by the withdrawal of United Kingdom taxpayers's finance for this American concern. That is a serious proposition and a powerful argument. I would, however, ask my hon. Friend whether it can be seriously argued that long-term employment in another black spot, Clydeside, was advanced by the hundreds of millions of pounds that we poured into Linwood. I take leave to doubt it. We know what happened there.
Moreover, the £14 million presented to this American gentleman in August last year was specifically found by reallocation of expenditure within the Northern Ireland budget. Northern Ireland Members have argued that other parts of that budget from which funds were withdrawn to feed Mr. De Lorean would have provided sounder longterm employment in the Province. They are in a far better position than I to judge the position. I cannot help feeling that they could be right.
Two specific questions arise, in addition to those of parliamentary accountability, which concern me considerably. The £14 million handout of August 1980 was said to be designed to compensate Mr. De Lorean under the terms of his remarkable original agreement with the right hon. Member for Barnsley for, among other things,

639
adverse movements in the pound-dollar exchange rate. It may not have escaped your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that since August last year the pound-dollar exchange rate has moved in the opposite direction. The movements of which Mr. De Lorean apparently complained have been reversed—in fact more than reversed. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether we shall get some of the £14 million back.
Shortly before Easter, my hon. Friend the Minister of State told us that the taxpayer would start to see a return on his money very shortly after the first shipment of these remarkable cars left the Belfast docks. I understand that the first shipment left the Belfast docks around the middle of April. Have we had any money yet? Have any royalties been paid yet? If not, I begin to wonder what is meant by "very shortly". I presume, in any case, that the royalties would be paid out of the guaranteed loans that we have been presenting to this gentleman. That does not therefore advance us very much.
It is no part of my contention to argue that this adventure is bound to fail. I accept that there is a possibility of success. Succeed or fail, it is of an altogether too speculative nature to be appropriate for widows and orphans, or even for the taxpayers for whom the Minister of State, myself and 633 other Members are supposed to be the trustees.
I am increasingly driven to the conclusion that this is another classic example of the way in which civil servants, having made a dubious investment, try to cover their tracks by pouring more and more money down the same drain. The House is owed an explanation of how successive undertakings given by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that Mr. De Lorean's begging bowl could not repeat its achievements have successively been vitiated by events. The Northern Ireland Office, like the raven, has cried "Never more" too often. It is about time that it meant it.
10.25 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): It may surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) to hear me say that it is right that we should have this debate, because it allows me to put the history clearly on the record and perhaps to dispose of some of the exaggerations which obtain inside and outside the House.
My hon. Friend raised two valid points which are more recent than the others that he has raised on previous occasions. He questioned whether this investment should have been undertaken, and whether it was appropriate for the pension funds and the taxpayers to put money into it. The two more recent points arise from the Government's latest decision to provide further guarantees and from the question whether the Government have been fully accountable and open to the House about those decisions. I shall tackle the last point first, because in Adjournment debates one tends to run out of time. When any hon. Member suggests that the House has been misled, it is proper that Ministers should give an explanation. There has, of course, been no intention to mislead the House.
A decision was taken, following the events that my hon. Friend briefly described—to which I shall refer when I outline the history—that the Government should guarantee further loans so that the cash requirements caused by those events were likely to overrun those already provided for. We took the decision on 1 May, after
640
thorough investigation of the issues, and informed the House at the earliest opportunity, on 22 May, in a written answer. Whether an oral statement should have been made is a matter of opinion.
I believe that the House accepts that in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, not only was the right decision taken but it was judged that in the light of the circumstances the guarantee should be given that the statements about no further funding must be regarded as not referring to the eventuality.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend has made a serious statement. He said in answer to a question on 22 May that the Department of Commerce had agreed to allow
"a further time-limited guarantee of £million."—[Official Report, 22 May 1981, Vol. 5, c. 185.]
He related that to damage to the company's office on 5 May. He now tells us that the decision was taken on 1 May. How does he relate that? It seems that there was a further error in the answer which he gave on 22 May.
Mr. Butler: I do not think that my hon. Friend believes that I said 1 May and then that we took the earliest opportunity to inform the House. The date is 21 May. I am sorry if that was not clear.
I owe it to the House to go back over the history. Events might then become clearer. De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. was established in July 1978 to manufacture in Belfast the De Lorean automobile, a new gull-wing luxury personal car. All of its ordinary share capital of about £546,000 was owned by the De Lorean Co. which is a Michigan registered corporation. The Northern Ireland Development Agency subscribed £17·8 million in the form of redeemable participating preference shares.
The Department has provided substantial assistance in various ways which have been spelt out in parliamentary answers, both written and oral. There is no reason to go into detail except to remind the House that there is a large element of loans in the total sum. At the time that the decision to invest was taken, it was expected that, out of that £53 million, £24½ million would be recovered.
It is suggested that the amount of private investment set alongside the public investment is minimal. To put the record straight, I should say that funds for the development of the project have been raised in various ways by private investors totalling about $33 million to $34 million which, depending on the conversion rate used, is between £16 million and £18 million.
Mr. Bob Cryer: How much of that expenditure was on research and development for the motor car? If it was a significant sum, why was such an enormous amount of taxpayers' money spent subsequent to the research and development to get the car into production?
Mr. Butler: A significant proportion of that sum went into research and development. One cannot produce a new car with such novel features without research and development. One cannot distinguish in development costs between research and development and the funding of the plant for production purposes.
My hon. Friend reminded the House about the further loan provision last summer and then of the guarantees provided against commercial bank loans in December. It was fully explained to the House that, although, as part of the August deal, the obligations of the Government to the

641
company had been removed by agreement, there was nothing to prevent the Government from producing further funds or, as happended, providing guarantees if the circumstances so justified. We argued, and I believe that it was accepted by most hon. Members, that because of the proximity of the launch, the past investment, and especially because of the employment consequences of not proceeding, it was right to provide those guarantees. In May 1981 the company suffered a serious disruption of production because of petrol bomb attacks on its premises and subsequent disruptions in production, and the Department agreed to guarantee further bank borrowings. Those are the basic facts of the Government's involvement.
The House is aware that the project was approved by the Labour Administration. Whatever the justifications were then, my hon. Friends and I had to be concerned with the position that we found.
What is the position today? I was delighted that my hon. Friend, at least tonight, did not suggest that the factory and car were the figment of somebody's imagination. He has questioned time and again whether there has been genuine production in the factory. Because I believe that certain information is available if properly researched—I am not abusing confidences—I want to state the present position so that we can see that we are dealing with real production.
The company has produced more than 1,000 cars to date, with an export value of about £10 million. In the whole of 1981 it expects to produce and sell about 8,000 cars, with an export value of about £80 million. Cars are being produced at the rate of 130 per week and the company plans to increase that number gradually until about 400 cars per week are available in the autumn. In 1982 it hopes to produce and sell 20,000 or more cars, with an export value of about £200 million.
On the question of sales, two shipments have left Belfast docks, the first of which is either in the hands of the dealers or on the way to them. After the normal pre-customer preparations, we can presume that sales to the retail customer will begin shortly. The next shipment is expected within the next week, which will bring the total shipped to more than 1,000. The royalty payments on the cars will be made, as agreed, at the end of the quarter—that is, at the end of June. That is the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend on the last occasion that we debated the matter.
The company has provided Northern Ireland with a highly visible international project, and a substantial
642
opportunity to broaden the Province's industrial base and to reduce its dependency on traditional and diminishing heavy engineering and textiles. It offers hope for the training and development of new skills for the Northern Ireland work force. It is an important outlet for management and commercial expertise. If it is successful, the project undoubtedly will give a boost to the attractions of Northern Ireland for additional foreign, mainly United States, industrial investment.
It has never been denied that the commercial risks associated with such an enterprise are high, although I refute my hon. Friend's suggestion that this is a speculation which compares with that of the South Sea Bubble. That is exaggerated talk which adds nothing to the argument and does not assist the company in its efforts. However, the risks are high, and recent events outside the company's control have increased the risks.
We believe that the potential value of the project to Northern Ireland, and West Belfast especially, is such that the Government should accept the risks that are being taken. I repeat deliberately that we are talking about a part of the United Kingdom where the average unemployment rate is over 17 per cent. In the area in close proximity to the factory unemployment is about 30 per cent. or more. In the circumstances, we believe that the Government's support for the company in the way that we have shown it is justified. Time will tell whether that support was worth while. We accept that time will tell whether the company's efforts succeed. I hope sincerely that they will.
I accept that my hon. Friend has a valid argument on behalf of the taxpayer. He is justified in asking the questions that he continues to throw at the Government about whether public money should continue to be made available. The answer that I gave in the House on a previous occasion about future expenditure still stands. That statement was made in good faith. The circumstances that have prevailed would surely fall outside a statement about no further money being made available. However, we must accept that other companies have to meet the consequences of actions that they may not have foreseen. I believe that the company and Mr. De Lorean are well aware of the reluctance with which the guarantee was forthcoming. Accepting that, and accepting the statements that have been made about normal commercial conditions, I believe that if further cash is required to ensure the launching of the car he will see that that money is made available from sources other than the public purse.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Third World Aid
  Third World Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Third World
  Third World
TRADE
  Companies Office (Registration of Charges)
  Companies Office (Registration of Charges)
  Premium Offers
  Premium Offers
  Brazilian Footwear Imports
  Brazilian Footwear Imports
  British Overseas Trade Board
  British Overseas Trade Board
  Concorde (Sonic Boom)
  Concorde (Sonic Boom)
SCOTLAND
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Herring Fisheries
  Herring Fisheries
  MAVIS Scanner
  MAVIS Scanner
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Hunter Inquiry
  Hunter Inquiry
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Paris
  Paris
  Uxbridge
  Uxbridge
  Peak District National Park
  Peak District National Park
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  European Council
  European Council
  Luton
  Luton
  Women (Health Care)
  Women (Health Care)
  Council of Europe (Family Ministers)
  Council of Europe (Family Ministers)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  University of London (Medical Student Intake)
  University of London (Medical Student Intake)
  Contraceptive Teaching Pack
  Contraceptive Teaching Pack
  Mr. B. Jones
  Mr. B. Jones
  Unemployed Persons (New Businesses)
  Unemployed Persons (New Businesses)
  Supplementary Benefit (Prisoners on Remand)
  Supplementary Benefit (Prisoners on Remand)
  Children's Committee
  Children's Committee
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Governors
  Prison Governors
  Shops Act 1950
  Shops Act 1950
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Financing)
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Financing)
  Race Relations Act 1968
  Race Relations Act 1968
  Street Offences
  Street Offences
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  West Yorkshire Police
  West Yorkshire Police
  Armley Prison, Leeds
  Armley Prison, Leeds
  Police Ombudsman
  Police Ombudsman
  Breakfast Television
  Breakfast Television
  Radio Interference
  Radio Interference
  Homes for the Elderly (Fire Precautions)
  Homes for the Elderly (Fire Precautions)
  Cheshire Constabulary
  Cheshire Constabulary
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Prison Rules
  Prison Rules
  Prisons (Building and Repair)
  Prisons (Building and Repair)
  Prisoners (Medical Treatment)
  Prisoners (Medical Treatment)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Magistrates' Courts (Bailiffs)
  Magistrates' Courts (Bailiffs)
  Departmental Programmes (Expenditure)
  Departmental Programmes (Expenditure)
  Crossbows
  Crossbows
  Racial Disturbances (Croydon)
  Racial Disturbances (Croydon)
  Special Constabulary
  Special Constabulary
  Open Prisons
  Open Prisons
  Yorkshire Ripper Case
  Yorkshire Ripper Case
  Drivers (Insurance)
  Drivers (Insurance)
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
WALES
  Youth Opportunities Programme (Bridgend, Cymmer and Maesteg)
  Youth Opportunities Programme (Bridgend, Cymmer and Maesteg)
  Nurses (Dyfed)
  Nurses (Dyfed)
  Deaf Persons
  Deaf Persons
  A44 (Aberystwyth)
  A44 (Aberystwyth)
  Water Bills
  Water Bills
  House Building (Statistics)
  House Building (Statistics)
  Housing (Conversions and Improvements)
  Housing (Conversions and Improvements)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Pound Sterling (Parity)
  Pound Sterling (Parity)
  Crude Oil (Price)
  Crude Oil (Price)
  Tax Amnesties
  Tax Amnesties
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Share Capital
  Share Capital
  Non-domestic Rates
  Non-domestic Rates
  Inland Revenue Staff (Domestic Rating).
  Inland Revenue Staff (Domestic Rating).
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Director of Public Prosecutions ("Panorama" Programme)
  Director of Public Prosecutions ("Panorama" Programme)
  Mrs. Nasira Begum
  Mrs. Nasira Begum
INDUSTRY
  Small Firms Service
  Small Firms Service
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  European Textile Industry (Strategy)
  European Textile Industry (Strategy)
  Small Firms (Procurement Contracts)
  Small Firms (Procurement Contracts)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Provisional Passports (Purchases)
  Provisional Passports (Purchases)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Unemployment Register
  Unemployment Register
  Community Service
  Community Service
  National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People
  National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People
  Unemployed Persons (Liverpool)
  Unemployed Persons (Liverpool)
DEFENCE
  Service Women (Arms Training)
  Service Women (Arms Training)
  Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve
  Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve
  Gliding Instructors
  Gliding Instructors
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Geese and Ducks (Forcible Feeding)
  Geese and Ducks (Forcible Feeding)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Lamb and Sheepmeat
  Lamb and Sheepmeat
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Common Agricultural Policy and Common Commercial Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy and Common Commercial Policy
  Foodstuffs (Destruction)
  Foodstuffs (Destruction)
  Conservation Grants
  Conservation Grants
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Annual Costs)
  Teachers (Annual Costs)
  Minority Groups
  Minority Groups
  University Places
  University Places
  Science and Mathematics Teachers
  Science and Mathematics Teachers
  Burnham Committee (Representation)
  Burnham Committee (Representation)
  School Leavers (Oldham and Kirklees)
  School Leavers (Oldham and Kirklees)
  Students (Benefit Claims)
  Students (Benefit Claims)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Pupils (Special Schools)
  Pupils (Special Schools)
  French Language Teaching
  French Language Teaching
  Dundee University
  Dundee University
ENVIRONMENT
  Richmond Park (Papal Visit)
  Richmond Park (Papal Visit)
  Chance Glass Works Site, West Smethwick
  Chance Glass Works Site, West Smethwick
  Corngreaves Hall, Sandwell
  Corngreaves Hall, Sandwell
  Environmental Health Officers
  Environmental Health Officers
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Extraditions (Statistics)
  Extraditions (Statistics)
  Interrogations (Statistics)
  Interrogations (Statistics)
  European Commission on Human Rights
  European Commission on Human Rights
  Suspected Terrorists (Fatalities)
  Suspected Terrorists (Fatalities)
  Prison Rules
  Prison Rules
TRANSPORT
  Institute of Advanced Motorists
  Institute of Advanced Motorists
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Motor Accidents (Non-insured Persons)
  Motor Accidents (Non-insured Persons)
  Road Vehicles (Insurance)
  Road Vehicles (Insurance)

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

Air Fares: Discounted Tickets
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 are the legal provisions which make it illegal to sell discounted air tickets, and why is "the question of legality in this context a difficult one to solve".[Official Report, 19th May 1981; col. 828.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the legal provisions are contained in Sections 21 and 22 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 in so far as British operators and their agents are concerned and in Article 80 of the Air Navigation Order 1980 in so far as foreign operators are concerned. In both cases the offence relates to the carriage of passengers or cargo in contravention of the operator's operating licence or permit.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister and the Department have lost all credibility on this matter by now. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether he still maintains in this House that he does not understand that the purpose of the evidence submitted to him was to demonstrate that these tickets were being sold by the airlines and could be purchased freely at a discount in the United Kingdom? Does he deny that this evidence showed that persons paid less for their tickets than the amount shown, that photostat receipts for these amounts are available, that validation certificates show that they were issued by the airlines and that the airlines themselves were definitely named? Finally, is he aware that there is great resentment in this House and outside at the way that bureaucracy impedes any progress whatsoever in this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not been able to help the noble Baroness more in this matter but the evidence to which she refers does not, I am afraid, sustain her suggestion that an effective and successful prosecution could necesarily be mounted. One would need to show more to achieve a conviction than that the ticket had been sold over the counter by an agent or by an airline at a price other than the one which was the authorised price.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a large number of people from this House purchase these tickets? Will he tell us whether we are liable to prosecution because we do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that has been the burden of my song in this matter: that it is difficult to say in a particular case without looking at the facts whether any noble Lord has contravened the various provisions to which I referred.
Baroness Elliott of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the fact that one of the biggest companies, British Airways, sells the tickets—perfectly above board in the sense that they do not try to hide it—at these bucket shop levels, that they are IATA's representatives in this country, that IATA is the governing body and that British Airways is the representative of Britain on IATA, he does not consider that British Airways is breaking the law?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords; IATA is not the governing body of anything. It is a trade association of airlines. Most of the airlines choose to be members of IATA and very often airlines' proposals for fare increases, for example, come through IATA, first, to the Civil Aviation Authority and then to my department, for approval.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I have asked this question several times and we are always fobbed off with the fact that IATA are the controlling agency. If IATA are the controlling agency ought they not to control their members so that their members do not break their laws?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I must have misled my noble friend inadvertently. IATA are not the governing or controlling body of anything. IATA are governed or controlled (if those are the words) by their members.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the evidence submitted to his department by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, seems prima facie to disclose a case? Will he indicate whether the evidence and the question have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions or whether they have been referred to the Attorney-General, and exactly what legal advice he has received in this very important matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a team of legal advisers within the department who are specifically experienced and qualified in these matters.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, why do not the Government take the risk of initiating the necessary legal proceedings against this firm—with a considerable chance of success?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is the difficulty. There is no considerable chance of success. There is a very slight chance of success and, while the chance of success is so slight, I decline to waste public money on a prosecution.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne suggested that IATA are not the governing body; but, as I understand it, IATA are within their power to dismiss any member of their body should that member transgress their rules.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I could dilate for some time on the powers and constitution of IATA. I might weary your Lordships if I were to do so, but my noble friend has got it wrong.
Lord Segal: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say how many prosecutions have taken place so far, or when the first is likely to occur?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there has been no prosecution while I have been responsible for these matters.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this: If he has definitely made up his mind that there is no legal case, has he any other action in mind, short of prosecution, that would remedy the grave state of affairs to which my noble friend Lady Burton has so often drawn attention? Surely there is some other step he is proposing to take and he is not going to sit in his place facing these questions, day in, week in, year in and out, without taking any action whatsoever.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are two answers to that. First, so far as prosecutions are concerned, as I have said before, it is my duty to uphold the law in these matters. Whenever evidence which will sustain a prosecution is brought before me, I shall do that. But, as I have said to your Lordships on many occasions, the long-term answer to the problem is to secure a more competitive and equitable régime for air fares generally, and that is what we are seeking to achieve.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister has just given two answers; I shall be glad if I could have one. Is the noble Lord aware that we have the greatest admiration for his legal advisers, but, as 5 million tickets were sold by the bucket shops last year and the advisers were unable to find one case among those to prosecute, it does make one think.

Kelmscott House
3.14 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will advise the Charity Commission that their decision to prefer short-term financial advantage over the long-term interests of scholarship in the case of Kelmscott House and the William Morris Society is causing grave disquiet and will lead to litigation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not answerable for the day-to-day administration of the Charity Commission. However, I understand that the commissioners have not yet taken any decision, but are continuing their efforts
314
to facilitate an acceptable solution that is consistent with the objects of the charity. They deny that there is any question of their unduly emphasising the financial aspect, important as that is.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Is he aware that William Morris was one of the most distinguished men of the 19th century and a very great Englishman, and that a great many people are anxious and indeed distressed by the dilatory and confused behaviour by the Charity Commission in this important case, which appears to be resulting in most unfortunate consequences for the William Morris Society and the virtual dereliction of Kelmscott House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I understand the anxiety which he is expressing, but I believe that the commission has all along been trying to devise an acceptable solution as soon as possible. Delays have arisen through the inability of the interested parties to reach agreement.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that of course the reputation of William Morris slumped a little in previous years but is now coming up again? There are a very great number of craftsmen interested in seeing that there should be a solution and that a wonderful tradition in the crafts should be carried on.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful for me to say that the point at issue is that the Charity Commission's approval is needed for the sale of the lease of the house. The commission, as I understand it, has to ensure that the best interests of the charity are served, not only financially but in the furtherance of the charity's stated objects.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that there is a great deal of anxiety on the part of many people who are concerned and have the interests of the society at heart, as they feel that it looks as though the Charity Commissioners are giving the house to the trustees, rather than to the society? Although the Government are not responsible for the day-to-day affairs, is there not a point at which the Government will have to come in, before it becomes too late, or before there is litigation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the commissioners must ensure that the best interests of the charity are served in financial transactions, and their dealings officially, I understand, would be with the trustees. So far as intervention by the Government is concerned, it is important for me to stress that the powers of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary under the Charities Act 1960 do not extend to intervening in decisions of the Charity Commission.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared at any rate to consider urging the Charity Commission to pay proper respect to the wishes of the donor of Kelmscott House in 1972? It was the clear intention of the donor that the premises should be used for the benefit of the William Morris

315
Society, and it is the William Morris Society which is now going to be largely ousted from those premises. Would he not consider it proper to make sure that the Charity Commission in its deliberations pays the utmost respect to what the donor had in her mind in the first place?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that it is evident from the replies that I have tried to give that this would be among the functions and responsibilities of the Charity Commissioners.
Lord Alport: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is highly undesirable—whatever may be the views on the judgment of the Charity Commissioners in any particular case—for the Government to be involved in bringing pressure on them in any particular direction?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would agree with what my noble friend said.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a real doubt about the way in which the Charity Commission is exercising its responsibility in this and in many other matters? There is a lack of confidence in the Charity Commission. Two charities are involved, although the commissioners persist in believing that there is inextricable confusion and that there is only one charity, and have refused an inquiry under Section 6 of the Act, Only six inquiries under Section 6 took place last year, which is a grave dereliction of their responsibility.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I repeat that I understand the anxiety which my noble friend is expressing on a matter in which he has a close concern and which is very important. I repeat that the Charity Commission has functions and responsibilities which are clearly set out in the 1960 Act. We must keep in mind that the Government have no authority to intervene in individual decisions which are made by the Charity Commission.

Air Fares Within the EEC
3.20 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the alleged illegality under European law of the present system of fixing air fares for travel between European Community member states, they will refuse any further request from British Airways or any other member of the International Air Transport Association for an increase in such fares until the legal situation is clarified.
Lors Trefgarne: No, my Lords. Applications for fare increases within the EEC or elsewhere are decided in accordance with the considerations which I have
316
referred to on a number of occasions, not least the need to provide the customer with an adequate competitive choice. We would certainly welcome liberalisation of the present arrangements, but we would not be justified in refusing all increases in air fares within the Community until such time as this legal point is resolved.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, will the Minister please confirm that the present system of fixing air fares within the EEC member states is totally illegal under the Treaty of Rome? Has not his department determined that this is the case? Also, could he please tell us whether he is aware of the legal action that will soon be brought by myself against the EEC Commission for fixing air fares and arranging an illegal cartel? Does he appreciate the fact that if he and his department continue to connive at this illegal arrangement he may find himself before the European Court of Justice as well?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a prospect which I shall have to face with such fortitude as I can! For my noble friend to suggest that the system is illegal is not the position of Her Majesty's Government, and I shall certainly look forward to hearing what comes from my noble friend's complaint.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that if he is not able to break this IATA cartel for fare fixing in Europe, the best alternative is to encourage competition on these individual routes by independent airlines? Is he aware of the fact that only when Laker Airways and others came in on the Transatlantic routes were fares substantially lowered? Is he further aware that British Airways are currently circulating Members of Parliament, asking them to discourage competition by British Midland on the route between London and Glasgow on the shuttle? This is another instance where a single monopoly tends to keep prices up; and competition will lower prices.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that monopoly situations on air routes or anywhere else are highly undesirable. That is why we have been pushing forward within the European Community, particularly recently, with the initiative on air fares which we launched to get a better competitive régime for member countries within the Community, and I am hopeful that we shall in due course achieve some success.
Lord Bray: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether this fixing of air fares by the EEC applies to all private airlines?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the EEC do not fix air fares and, as far as I know, have no plans or proposals to do so. Air fares between the member states of the European Community, as between other states, are agreed by the Governments concerned upon the recommendations of the relevant airlines.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether the European Commission themselves have submitted any firm proposals in this

317
connection to the Council of Ministers for their consideration and, if they have submitted proposals, could the noble Lord give some indication as to what has happened to them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no proposals have actually been submitted yet, but we expect to receive some proposals in a very short time—possibly as early as next week. I very much hope there will be a draft directive or regulation included with that document.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, pending that, I suggest that we go on to the next Question.

UN Security Council Meeting: The Middle East
3.24 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the United Nations Security Council meeting tomorrow the summoning of an international conference to resolve the dangerous situation in the Middle East, including proposals for a nuclear-free zone in the region, an embargo on the supply of arms by other countries, a guarantee of Israel's frontiers, Palestinian self-determination, the establishment of peace in the Lebanon and Iran, and the stabilisation of the Gulf area.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Security Council is meeting tomorrow to discuss the attack by Israel on nuclear installations in Iraq. This is clearly connected with wider conflict in the Middle East, notably the continuing Arab-Israel dispute. We support all constructive attempts to resolve such conflict, but doubt whether a conference on the lines suggested by the noble Lord would at present have much chance of success.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask: does not each of the issues listed in my Question reflect the danger of war? Would it not be far better, in view of the width and complexity of this frightening situation, that they should be comprehensively and successively discussed at an international conference over which the USA and the USSR might preside, rather than by dealing with each separate question as it becomes urgent, leaving the closely related questions unsettled and still continuously explosive?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not certain that it would be wise for a conference to have such a wide-ranging agenda. On the Arab-Israel front we need to establish the basic conditions, in terms of Israeli and Palestinian acceptance of each other's rights, for example, which would allow negotiations on a comprehensive settlement to take place. It is worth mentioning, of course, that there is on the table a Soviet proposal for an international conference which
318
would not the Government, on reflection, agree that has been given a cautious welcome by some of the Arab side but rejected by the Israelis. This perhaps demonstrates some of the difficulties.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, while strongly agreeing with my noble friend Lord Brockway that the need for international action to defuse, if not to solve, the situation in the Middle East is now of acute urgency, may I put the following points to Her Majesty's Government in preparation for tomorrow's meeting of the Security Council? First, are consultations being held with other member countries of the Security Council with a view to united and significant action by the Security Council or by the appropriate agency of the United Nations Organisation? If so, do those consultations include not only our friends and allies, whom I hope are naturally being constantly consulted in these flatters, but also the Soviet Union and China? Thirdly, in view of the conflicting reports as to the purpose and the capability of the Iraqi Bagdad installation, ranging from what Prime Minister Begin has had to say about its being a matter of a few weeks in which atomic bombs might be produced and used from this base to create another holocaust in Israel, to rejections of such a view within Israel itself by certain leaders, and also reports of new information, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they themselves, or with other countries concerned, will initiate a swift review of the workings of the inspectorial—I may say the review will be swifter still if I am not interrupted—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: —the inspectorial functions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, especially in regard to the implementation of the nonproliferation treaty? These are very important questions which ought to be discussed tomorrow in the Security Council.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Iraq is, of course, a party to the non-proliferation treaty and has accordingly undertaken not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. All her nuclear facilities are subject to international safeguards and she could only develop explosives by breaching or withdrawing from her nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations. I can tell the noble Lord that her facilities were inspected by the IAEA as recently as last January and found to be entirely in accordance with the undertakings that had been entered into.
On the question of consultation prior to the meeting of the Security Council tomorrow, I can assure the noble Lord that consultation is going on but, as the meeting has only very recently been arranged and is taking place as soon as tomorrow, of course that cannot be very detailed.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, whatever may be the legal justification for the Israeli action—and some people maintain that there is still a state of war existing between Israel and Iraq—world opinion seems quite rightly to be unanimous in condemning it. This being so, and in view of the obvious dangers arising,

319
there is a strong case for promoting—if not in the United Nations, which, no doubt, will take some decision in condemning Israel—in the near future, and in some other forum, some kind of conference on the Middle East, preferably in Geneva, which must obviously include the Russians who, in my view, are just as alarmed and concerned at the desperate gesture of Mr. Begin as the Americans are?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course we are all deeply concerned about what has been happening in the Middle East. I should not want to prejudge the outcome of the meeting of the Security Council which is to take place tomorrow. But as for the question of international law, we say quite clearly that the Israeli actions were contrary to the prohibition in the UN Charter of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, would my noble friend not agree that these proposals for a seemingly limitless conference are a familiar propaganda ploy? Would he not also agree that this long and complicated agenda resembles nothing so much as a dog's breakfast?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the agenda suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was indeed a comprehensive one, and a conference as wide-ranging as that would, I fear, run into some of the difficulties that I have outlined.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Brockway is asking for a solution to the Middle East problem, would it not help if Syria, Iraq and some of the other Arab countries made a declaration that they are no longer in a state of war with Israel? Would not that be the first and desirable step? On a certain aspect of my noble friend Lord Brockway's Question about a recent event which has caused quite a lot of fuss in this and other countries—particularly in this country, recently, for some unaccountable reason—may I also ask about the action of Israel in destroying a nuclear plant in Iraq? Would the noble Lord who has answered the Question like, some day, to see British air pilots emulating the Israelis?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a somewhat academic question. But on the earlier point that the noble Lord put to me about a declaration from the Israelis or from the Arab countries, it is certainly the case that there are difficult positions for each side held by the other and, no doubt, all of them can make the appropriate declarations in the context of an overall settlement.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend on his absolutely outstanding and fair question on this matter, may I ask the noble Lord this question: While there has been universal condemnation of Israel, would we feel very happy if the French put some nuclear reactors on the Normandy coast? Would we feel quite as secure as we do now? As I say, there has been far too much condemnation of Israel in this matter and, after all, the Syrians and the Iraqis are the
320
greatest enemies of Israel. So we should surely not have quite such a harsh attitude towards the Israelis.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware, of course, of the feeling among the various nations of the Middle East about some of the others. But as for the noble Baroness's question as to the possibility of French missiles being sited on the Normandy coast, that would depend on whom they were aimed at.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in view of the discussion at tomorrow's meeting of the Security Council, would the Government support the idea of a nuclear free zone in this area which would meet the suspicions about developing nuclear weapons both in Iraq and in Israel? Would the Government also seek to end the supply of arms to both sides, Israel and the Arab countries, which is increasing the danger of military rivalry and the likelihood of the destruction of this explosive area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we certainly approve the concept of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, but I doubt whether it can be attained outside the context of an overall settlement in that part of the world. As for the supply of arms to the various countries, we need to consider each and every case on its merits.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available today at the usual time. Subject to the progress of business this afternoon, the Committee stage of the Transport Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for approximately half an hour. I think I should inform the House that it has been agreed that the Committee stage of the Transport Bill will be completed today and that the House will, therefore, not sit tomorrow. It was felt that this would be in the general interests of your Lordships in all parts of the House, and I hope that it will be possible to make expeditious progress throughout today, so that the House will rise at not too uncomfortably late an hour tonight.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the escape from Her Majesty's Prison, Belfast.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Trustee Savings Banks Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Trustee Savings Banks Acts 1969 to

321
1978, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
Read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Royal Assent
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Ports (Financial Assistance) Act,
Animal Health Act,
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act,
Sion College Act.

Transport Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 79:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Compulsory wearing of seat belts
.—(1) After section 33 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Wearing of seat belts.
33A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, persons who are driving or riding in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed.
(2) Regulations under this section—
322

(a) may make different provision in relation to different classes of vehicles, different descriptions of persons and different circumstances;

(b) shall include exceptions for—

(i) the users of vehicles constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumers or addressees, as the case may be, while engaged in making such deliveries;

(ii) the drivers of vehicles while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;

(iii) persons holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for him to wear a seat belt;

(c) may make any prescribed exceptions subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; and

(d) may prescribe cases in which a fee of a prescribed amount may be charged on an application for any certificate required as a condition of any prescribed exception.

(3) Any person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) If the holder of any such certificate as is referred to in subsection (2)(b) above is informed by a constable that he may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (3) above, he shall not, in proceedings for that offence, be entitled to rely on the exception afforded to him by the certificate unless—

(a) it is produced to the constable at the time he is so informed; or

(b) within five days after the date on which he is so informed, it is produced at such police station as he may have specified to the constable."

(2) In section 169 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (forgery of documents etc.) in subsection (2) (documents to which that section applies) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
"(bb) any certificate required as a condition of any exception prescribed under section 33A of this Act".
(3) In Part I of Schedule 4 to the Road Traffic Act 1972 (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry relating to section 33 there shall be inserted the following entry:—

"33A.

Driving or riding in a motor vehicle contravention of regulations requiring wearing of seat belts.

Summarily.

£50.

—

—

Sections 181 and 183 apply."").

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may have noticed that on the Marshalled List there are four amendments to my amendment. In order to save the time and convenience of the House, the noble Lords in whose names those amendments are recorded have very kindly agreed not to move them now. So that, at the end of the general debate on my amendment, there will be one single vote instead of a series of four or five votes which would, of course, have been very confusing. The noble Lords concerned reserve the right to put down their amendments on Report if my amendment should be carried. No doubt they will join in the debate on my amendment.
This new clause is the same in substance as my Private Member's Bill which gave an enabling power to the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations covering the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Noble Lords will remember that we had a debate about this last December. During the Second Reading debate—a very good, five hour debate—every argument, for and against compulsory seat belts was developed.

323
I thought the debate was of a very high order. We ended up with a vote of 72 in favour and 36 against. This was of great satisfaction to those who favour seat belt legislation.
I did not proceed with my Private Member's Bill because of the well known vulnerability of Private Member's Bills to any opposition in the House of Commons. One determined opponent is quite enough to destroy a Bill. Obviously, therefore, the best prospect of getting the issue on to the Floor of the House of Commons, where it is believed that on the free vote which would be given there would be a majority of about 100 in favour, is an amendment to this Government Transport Bill which we now have before us. I should add that an amendment similar to mine was on the Marshalled List in another place, but that when the Bill was passing through the Commons that amendment was a casualty under the guillotine motion and therefore was not voted on. So if we pass this amendment today and send it back to the Commons, the elected House of Commons will have their first chance in this Government Bill of voting upon this very important issue.
Despite the general public interest in this subject, I do not propose to inflict upon your Lordships a long and detailed speech, perhaps running to half an hour, dealing with all aspects of the Bill. If I did so, I think noble Lords might very well give me the advice to belt up myself. I believe that after the comprehensive debates which we have had in the past I need do no more than deal with the central argument in the Bill, that of the saving of life and limb which is expected to follow the making of this law. The powerful medical arguments I can confidently leave to my noble friends Lord Porritt, who will be following me, and Lord Richardson, who will also be taking part, as before; and I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley, recovered from his illness, also intends to take part. I know that I am going to be well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, from the Front Bench on the other side, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will develop the many other interesting points surrounding the subject.
I should begin by declaring my special interest in the subject as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and thanking their members and officials for the very helpful support which they have given in this campaign over the years.
The case for compulsory seat belts is very simply stated. It is this: the present wearing rate of seat belts is approximately 30 per cent. This was achieved after a massive public relations campaign by the Government over recent years. Legal compulsion is expected to raise that rate from 30 per cent. to 80 to 90 per cent. That forecast is based on experience in many other countries—26 now have this legislation—but particularly on the experience of Australia and New Zealand who might be thought to have a similar mentality to ourselves. At this level of seat belt wearing, 80 to 90 per cent., the Transport and Road Research Laboratory estimate that the saving of life would be of the order of 600 to 700 per annum and that the saving of serious injury would be of the order of 11,000 per annum. The police are in favour of this measure, despite whatever difficulties there may be
324
for them. I believe that this makes a compelling case in favour of the law.
I should mention a recent contribution to the public debate—Professor Adams' paper, which some noble Lords may have read, which advances the new and interesting thesis that the wearing of a seat belt might encourage a driver to take greater risks and therefore have more accidents. Professor Adams supported this thesis by reference to the death and injury trends for all classes of road user before and after seat belt legislation in a number of foreign countries. The evaluation of the significance of that paper depends upon the analysis of these global figures—the figures include all users: pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists and so on—to show what is related to front seat passengers and drivers only, which is what we are talking about. I have therefore asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory for their comments on this interesting paper but it will take the laboratory some time to obtain detailed statistics from these countries. I hope that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory will then publish a reply. It will be of obvious interest. In the meantime, the laboratory adhere to their former forecast of the potential saving of life and limb from the measure.
Let me briefly turn to the case of the opponents to this measure and say immediately that I recognise and sympathise with the attraction of the argument in defence of the liberty of the subject. I do understand the strength of feeling of noble Lords and some private citizens, too. Quite a number have written to me over recent weeks and months—about 50:50 for and against. I have had quite a fan mail. I have answered all those who wrote, except those who did not stamp their letters. In the context of driving a motor car on a public road where there are many regulations which must be accepted in the interests of the safety of everybody, my belief is that that argument really is not valid.
For the last 20 years both my wife and I have worn seat belts. With the modern belt, I find that it really does become second nature to put on the belt as I get into the car. I do not notice it when I am driving. It really is in no way onerous either to put it on or to wear it. I support my personal experience by reference to what has happened in those countries which have made it compulsory: that there has been general acceptance in the many countries concerned. It appears that most people quickly accept and adopt the practice, and I believe that this would happen here.
Finally, I must deal with the argument that the wearing of seat belts may actually cause death or injury. I immediately acknowledge that they may, but the odds against it happening—these have been assessed as well as one can in such a difficult case by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory—are at about 1,000:1. It is a very long shot indeed, whereas the wearing of seat belts is reliably estimated to double your prospects of avoiding death or injury in an accident. Those seem to me to be pretty good odds to adopt.
In the nature of things, there is no absolute certainty in frail human life. At the end of the day it is a matter of personal judgment. However, I submit that the advantages of making this law so greatly

325
outweigh the disadvantages that we are justified in doing so. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): As an amendment to this amendment, Amendment No. 79A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot.
Lord Teviot: Not moved.
[Amendment No. 79B not moved.]
3.50 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos 80 and 80A as amendments to Amendment No. 79:
After Clause 26, subsection (1), at end insert—
("1) The Secretary of State shall arrange for compensation to be paid to any person driving or riding in a motor vehicle whose death or injury is caused by the wearing of a seat belt and where there are no rights to recover such compensation from any other person or organisation.".)
The noble Lord said: The two amendments standing in my name, Amendments Nos. 80 and 80A, are among the many extremely important amendments which will be necessary if by some misfortune the principle of compulsion is written into the Bill. I sense that it is the Committee's wish to concentrate on the main issue of freedom. Therefore I do not propose to move either of these two amendments.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
3.50 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I intervene now on this important and controversial issue in the hope that your Lordships will find it helpful to hear the Government's view expressed at an early stage in the debate. This is undoubtedly an issue that cuts across party boundaries and I confirm that the Government are content to follow what is by now well-established tradition and allow a free vote. The position of the Government is one of neutrality, and individual Members of the Government are free to express their own views—as I shall do at the conclusion of what I have to say on this subject.
I should like to start by emphasising the Government's firm belief that seat belts themselves save lives and substantially reduce the chances of serious injury. They do so by preventing the user from coming into violent contact with parts of the vehicle's interior or from being ejected from it in an accident. As to the extent to which seat belts offer that protection, the accident records of seat belt wearers and non-wearers in Great Britain, supported by special studies such as those carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory between 1974 and 1976, show quite clearly that non-wearers are twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured as wearers. Of course, this might not apply in every single case and Members of your Lordships' House may well be able to quote personal examples where it is believed that the wearing of a seat belt would have made or in fact did make matters worse. This does not affect the general proposition that if one compares a large number of cases the record of seat belt wearers is decisively better. The medical
326
evidence is compelling and the statistics, even with all the reservations that one might fairly place upon them, are none the less highly significant.
Compulsory use of seat belts, however, raises a different set of issues. Supporters of compulsory usage—and these include the Automobile Association, and the medical profession whose members have to attend to the tragic consequences of road accidents—believe that the saving of life and prevention of injury is the paramount consideration. They point out that the voluntary wearing rate has been on a plateau of around 30 per cent. for some time and seems unlikely ever to increase much above that figure. They believe that compulsion has been successful where it has been accepted in other countries, and that if we in this country follow suit with 100 per cent. usage we could save up to 1,000 lives and prevent 10,000 serious injuries every year. Of course one will never under any circumstances achieve 100 per cent. usage, but any pro rata saving of lives or diminution in the number or degree of severity of accidents would be of major importance.
This is a powerful case, but to be objective it has to be said that there are also powerful arguments against compulsion. First, there is what is generally called the libertarian argument. I want to make quite clear that the real basis of this argument is not an objection to safety laws as such, but to making it a criminal offence for a person not to do something that affects his own personal safety and does not directly affect the safety of any third party. Those who take this view—and there are many of them—believe that there are few precedents for this type of law and that the few such laws as there are are bad laws. I submit that no one should lightly dismiss that argument, as it is a fundamental and serious point for consideration.
Secondly, there is the argument about the difficulty of enforcing this type of law. There is no doubt from the experience of other countries which have introduced compulsory usage that to be effective such a law needs to be continually enforced. Unless that is done, the wearing rate gradually drops. Unless there are penalties—which some countries do not have, incidentally—the wearing rate never achieves a satisfactory level. It is a matter of opinion whether the British notorist will be more or less willing to accept this kind of law than motorists in other countries. However, I am sure no one would disagree that the question of enforcement and its implications in relationships between the police and the public is an important aspect for noble Lords to bear in mind.
To both of these arguments, which are not new, there has recently been added a third argument, which is perhaps rather more novel. Basically, its conclusion is that compulsion will not achieve the results which its supporters claim for it. This argument stems from the publication of the paper to which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford referred. This was Professor John Adams' paper comparing total road accident fatalities during the 1970s for countries with and without seat belt laws. Professor Adams argued that countries which had no seat belt laws actually fared better in percentage improvement terms than countries which did have laws. He put forward the hypothesis that legislation actually encourages more risky driving. I have to say that I do not believe Professor Adams

327
has proved his thesis but, even so, the fact remains that in countries where compulsion has been introduced the casualty figures have not been as high as one might have expected, given what one knows about the efficiency of seat belts.
Some noble Lords may like to have more information about the experience in other countries. All I can say at present is that while there are a great many possible interpretations there is none which, from our examination of the data which is available, can be said to be in any way conclusive. Let me illustrate this with one interesting example of the way in which figures that at first sight seemed disappointing can look very different in a more detailed analysis. New Zealand is one of the countries in which road deaths after the introduction of compulsory usage actually increased. But there, at first compulsion applied only in respect of cars first registered after a certain date. A detailed analysis showed that fatal and serious injuries to occupants of cars to which compulsion did apply fell by nearly 10 per cent., while they fell by only 2 per cent. in the case of other cars. Also, the deaths of other classes of road users went up. This illustrates how in general published statistics the benefits of compulsory usage may be masked by other factors, and it also shows that interpreting casualty trends is an immensly complicated business.
Let me quote just one other example. In this country, road traffic deaths have dropped by some 900 over the past two years, which is a very considerable number by any standard. Apart from the fact that we have had a Conservative Government for the past two years I can think of no other obvious reason for this improvement. If we cannot always find explanations for our own casualty figures, how much more difficult it is to do so in the case of other countries, when the data available to us is inevitably more limited. The truth is that, in reality, we really do not know the reasons, and we cannot rely on the extent to which the experience of other countries is necessarily relevant to our own case. All we can say in broad terms is that with other factors being equal, compulsory usage should result in the level of casualty savings which have been customarily quoted.
Next I want to say something about the way in which the Secretary of State might expect to use all the important regulation-making powers in the clause, if it is passed. The first power the new clause would give concerns the making of regulations prescribing who is to wear seat belts. In theory this power could be used to prescribe that everyone in every seating position in a car, van, bus or lorry, whatever the age of the vehicle, should wear a seat belt—but that would be totally impractical. In practice we would expect to propose that compulsory wearing of seat belts should apply wherever compulsory fitting applies under the Construction and Use Regulations. More precisely, this would mean usage in respect of the occupants of the front seats of cars manufactured on or after 30th June 1964, goods vehicles manufactured on or after 1st September 1966, and three-wheeled vehicles registered on or after 1st March 1970.
The second power the new clause would give would be to prescribe those exempt from wearing seat belts. Some exemptions are suggested in the clause, such as
328
drivers engaged in making deliveries or in reversing the vehicle, as well as some on medical grounds. These are justifiable because they are so important and because there would be such a strong consensus in favour of them. There are other possible exemptions which would need to be considered, but I will not go into them now; but that they exist is without question. Before the Secretary of State makes the necessary regulations he would be under a duty—and I want to stress this—to consult outside interests. Clearly, this consultation process would give the Secretary of State the necessary opportunity to consider the practical issues involved.
I have spoken so far for the Government, but, as I close, I want to give my personal view. As a general principle, I strongly believe that the things which people should be compelled to do by law should be as few as possible. We are a free society and rightly proud of it. Any freedom, great or small, should not therefore be sacrificed lightly and I am as jealous and as concerned as anyone about encroachments on those freedoms. Too many people have sacrificed too much over too long a period of time in our history for us lightly to make concessions to basic principles. It is therefore with the fullest appreciation of what it means that I say that for myself, with all the caveats, with all the reservations which I hope I have fairly and objectively outlined, I would nevertheless be willing, in this situation, to forgo this particular freedom.
I entirely accept the arguments that we shall doubtless be hearing again today about the difficulties of enforcement. I do indeed understand those who will instance cases where wearing belts might have had an adverse effect. These are strong arguments and I respect them, but, at the end of the day, with a decision to take, to me the medical evidence cannot be brushed aside. Whether the saving of lives and the effects on injuries are in tens, hundreds or thousands the number itself does not matter; in my view the balance of the argument comes down, albeit not easily and only just in favour of compulsion, and that is why, unless today I hear some quite new evidence, I personally have decided, after carefully considering all the arguments so far available, that I will support the amendment.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I am certain that the Committee will be grateful to the three noble Lords who have forsaken the opportunity to move their own amendments so that the Committee may concentrate on the main principle in the debate. I think your Lordships will also appreciate the concise way in which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, put forward the case, which I support. I think one should also pass comment on the speech made by the noble Lord the Minister, for Lord Bellwin has been very fair in putting the two cases and I think everyone will appreciate that he has been prepared to state forthrightly his own personal view on this issue as well as putting forward the impartial case for and against. I should like to echo what he has said on the Government side and, as I said at Second Reading, on all these safety issues a free vote is the position with regard to these Benches.
I, too, have no intention of repeating all the arguments in previous debates nor of going into all the many statistics that were put forward on one side or

329
the other in our previous discussions. There is so much support for the new clause from a variety of quarters. In fact the major opposition to the principle of compulsion has come from that influential body, the RAC, but even the RAC have made it absolutely clear that they are completely in favour of the maximum voluntary use of seat belts by drivers.
Reference has been made to the study paper of Professor Adams. I want to deal with that from another angle because a number of noble Lords may have received a covering letter from a Member of the other place with items concerning this study paper. Reference is made to the fact that a rally driver with various pieces of safety equipment and wearing a seat belt—and I now quote from the covering letter—
"Will obviously drive faster and take greater chances than a driver without this equipment".
The question is then posed—and I shall quote again:
"is it not reasonable to assume that the ordinary motorist who has had drummed into him the safety benefits of wearing the seat belt may be affected by the same phenomenon?"
I would suggest that it is not reasonable at all to claim that this is generally applicable to seat belt-wearing motorists. Such a suggestion would be rejected by the Automobile Association, which fully supports the principle of compulsion and also, I think, by the RAC, which supports the voluntary wearing of seat belts.
I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of motorists who regularly wear seat belts do so because they are satisfied that by doing this they may avoid serious injury. But what concerns me is that arguments of this kind could suggest that opposition in some quarters may be shifted. Hitherto the main argument has been on the question of compulsion. It would be terribly dangerous if credence were to be given to any arguments against the benefit of the wearing of seat belts. I said that I would not go into statistics and I shall not do so, but I must challenge any suggestion that there has been no serious research into the question of seat belts and accidents. As has been mentioned, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has produced a number of reports. I have five of them and I have read them time and time again. These reports have been compiled by scientists and other experts and I would remind noble Lords of one report, which surveyed 1,800 accidents and for each of the 2,879 occupants of the cars involved some 800 pieces of data were coded and fed into the computer. That does not suggest a light-hearted approach to the survey. These reports of the laboratory are very compelling and just cannot be disregarded.
In addition to the support of the AA and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, reference has been made to RoSPA. I think all noble Lords will appreciate the valuable work of RoSPA on many issues. Their work is generally respected and I am certain that RoSPA would never have arrived at the conclusion they have arrived at, to support the compulsory principle, without very great care and detailed research.
Above all, we have to consider why the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Nursing have all come out strongly in urgent support for the new clause. Their
330
members see the results of serious accidents, and I am certain that many noble Lords will be as impressed as I am by the arguments advanced in this House by eminent members of various branches of medicine. The issue must not be confused now by opening up any argument about the benefit of seat belts; the issue before us is the one of compulsion or otherwise.
I also appreciate the view of those who oppose the principle of compulsion. I value individual freedom possibly higher than any other principle that I have, but in our modern society we all have to accept restraints on liberty of action. On every single journey that we take as motorists—and most of us in this Committee are motorists—we are confronted all along the way with what we may do and what we must not do. The entire question of traffic law and road safety provisions affects our freedom of action.
There is one other point that must not be overlooked. Consideration must be given to the immense cost of the resources involved in the work of the police, ambulance, medical and hospital services, the time and care that our skilled surgeons, doctors and nurses have to devote to thousands of serious casualties as a result of road accidents, many of which those in the medical profession are satisfied could have been avoided if seat belts had been worn.
Reference has been made to enforcement, and no doubt that will be added to by other noble Lords. Of course the question of enforcement could be argued in regard to most of our road traffic laws and as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, the police do not oppose the principle in this new clause. In any event if agreeing to this new clause only increased substantially the number of motorists who regularly, as a matter of habit, put on their seat belts a great advantage would have been secured.
The final point I want to make is that, as has been mentioned, this is in effect an enabling Act and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has stressed that there will be consultation. That is vital. I have been approached, both by the Association of District Councils, 50 of whom have their own passenger road transport systems, and also by the Confederation of Road Passenger Transport. I recognise that the position of passenger public service vehicles must be considered, and I am delighted to know that there will be the fullest consultation, which will obviously take in the Confederation of Road Passenger Transport.
I hope the Committee will support this new clause and that there will then he the widest possible consultations with all interested bodies, motoring organisations, accident prevention organisations, the medical profession and the manufacturers of motoring equipment, before drafting the necessary regulations. I emphasise that I believe the consultation must include the manufacturers, with regard to any possible improved design of seat belts. I believe that is essential. Despite the arguments that will be put on the compulsion issue, the views put forward so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, are such that I hope the Committee will give its support to this new clause.
Lord Bellwin: It may be for the convenience of the House if we now take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prison Escape: Belfast
4.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The text of the Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the escape from Her Majesty's prison, Belfast.
"Eight prisoners escaped from Her Majesty's prison, Belfast, yesterday afternoon at about 4.15 p.m. All of them were at the time on remand. The trial of seven of them had already ended, and the judge is expected to deliver his judgment tomorrow. Four of those were charged with the murder of an Army officer, Captain Westmacott, who was killed when the Army and police surrounded a house in the Antrim Road, Belfast, in May 1980. Two were charged with the murder, in April 1980, of Police Constable Magill. The seventh man, Ryan, was charged with the murder of an RUC constable, Reserve Constable Scott, in 1976, and a former member of the UDR, Mr. Fowler, in 1978. The eighth man, Gerard Sloan, was charged with being in possession of explosives. The trial in this latter case has not yet begun.
"The escape began while the eight prisoners were in discussion with three solicitors in three separate groups, each group in a cubicle in the visiting room which is some 15 yards inside the main gate of the prison. The prisoners produced three pistols. Four prison officers were forced to hand over their uniforms, which were put on by four of the escaping prisoners. The escapers then made their way to the main gate of the prison, severely injuring a prison officer who attempted to prevent them from leaving the visiting area. This prison officer was struck on the head, and is in hospital with a suspected fractured skull.
"At the main gate prison officers on duty were forced at gunpoint to allow the prisoners to leave. The eight prisoners then went immediately to two cars which were apparently waiting for them. Up to this point they had not discharged firearms. The alarm was raised at the main gate, alerting other prison officers, and the Army and the police. At least one shot was fired by the escapers: fire was returned by the Army and the police. Nobody appears to have been hit. The two vehicles were abandoned not far away, and it appears that the prisoners then hijacked other vehicles to continue their escape.
"The police and Army mounted a large-scale operation immediately after the escape. This
332
operation is continuing, but so far none of the escaped prisoners has been arrested.
"Immediately after the escape, two solicitors and one solicitor's apprentice were arrested and are still in police custody, as are two other men, subsequently arrested in connection with the escape.
"Sir, an event like this is something which I regard as of the utmost gravity, and I am sure the House will agree. Apart from apprehending those who escaped, which is a matter for the police, the immediate essential is to find out what went wrong and to take steps to stop its happening again. To this end, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made available Mr. W. H. Pearce, CBE, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, to conduct an urgent inquiry into security arrangements at the prison relevant to the escape of these eight men and to report to me. The inquiry will begin immediately."
That concludes the text of the Statement, my Lords.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for repeating in this House this very important Statement made in another place. The armed outbreak from this fortress-like prison could have serious implications not only for the people of Northern Ireland but for the people in Britain and in the Irish Republic. There is no doubt that this was a meticulously planned and expertly executed escape, and it raises many questions and issues. At this stage, I would hesitate to level blame, and especially at the already hard-pressed prison personnel and security forces. I am sure the House will join with me in wishing the injured officer and others who may be concerned who were injured, in this particular incident, a speedy recovery to full health.
However, I think it is understandable that the incident has raised considerable disquiet, and questions are already being asked about how this outbreak could have occurred—how did it happen? I think it is reasonable to ask how were the guns smuggled into the prison and made available to the prisoners? Under what circumstances were the meetings simultaneously arranged with the prisoners and their legal advisers in the confines in which they took place? Were there sufficient prison personnel on duty to deal with the position? In these days of such sophisticated and effective electronic detection and alarm devices, has the prison, or have prisons in Northern Ireland, been denied the finance to carry out suitable and adequate up-to-date security installations?
Finally, I should like to say that, whatever may be the follow-up procedures to be undertaken, I hope due regard will be given to the interests of innocent citizens in their homes. I certainly welcome the Statement and the assurance that immediate and thorough investigation is to be made of this serious incident and that it is already under way. I do not expect the noble Lord to reply to the questions that I have put to him today. Indeed, I consider this would be part of the duty of the person appointed to undertake the investigation. I would like to say that

333
I have every confidence that Mr. Pearce, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, will carry out his task fearlessly and effectively. I hope that he will deal with not only this matter of the Crumlin Road prison but also the general prison situation in Northern Ireland as regards both conditions and aspects of security. With that, I give support to the Statement as outlined by the Minister.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches share in the concern expressed in the Statement and by the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. We also share in the sympathy expressed to those who have been hurt in the incident. We deplore the fact that these escapes have proved possible. On the face of it the security arrangements would appear to have been inadequate for dealing with prisoners with such serious offences in the prevailing conditions in Northern Ireland. How could the prisoners, for example, have come into possession of pistols? We are glad that there is to be an inquiry and we hope that the inquiry will be thorough and far-reaching.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I should like to say that indeed the inquiry will be far-reaching and thorough. As to the other questions of how this occurred and the apportionment of blame, it is quite right, as both noble Lords pointed out, that we should await the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to add two questions to the very thorough remarks that have already been made. First, my recollection of when I was concerned with prisons in Northern Ireland was that every visitor, whether a solicitor or not, was searched. Is that correct? If that is so, then it seems to me that one can pinpoint pretty easily what went wrong. Secondly, while welcoming Mr. Pearce's appointment, may I ask that at least a good deal of his report be published?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I point out that all visitors, including solicitors, are searched when they go into the prison. As to the publication of the inquiry, I shall certainly take the noble Lord's concern to my right honourable friend.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thought that certainly some of the prison personnel, some of the officers, were, in fact, armed. Are they not armed at all?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if prison officers were armed there would be an every day, day-to-day danger of a prison officer's firearm being taken from him by a prisoner. They are not armed.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I welcome the Statement made by my noble friend on what to us, especially in the border area, is a major disaster,
334
because there has, in fact, by this escape, been a recruitment of somewhere around a 30 per cent. increase in the efficient strength of gangs south of the border, because it is south of the border that I believe they will go. I should like to ask my noble friend whether his inquiry will extend right across the board of prisoners before they are convicted and, if convicted, go to the Maze Prison. It is on that level that I feel that our régime has become too liberal for the conditions in which we live. I should like to suggest to my noble friend that he should suggest to his right honourable friend that they might use the Maze Prison, which is an infinitely harder place from which to escape, as a remand prison for this particular type of prisoner.
Is my noble friend aware of the absolute dismay that there is in the Security Forces, which, in the case of one man, Ryan, spent four dangerous years chasing this vicious murderer? If the Government can do anything to try to reassure the Army and the police in their very dangerous task in this affair, it will be very welcome to everybody.
Also, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he will ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to press at once with the new Government in Dublin, whichever it may be, for some form of extradition or some efficient method of bringing these criminals to justice, because to the South of Ireland, to Monaghan they will go without a doubt. The present method is almost useless. Will my noble friend press that matter?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I leave the House in no doubt at all that the Government do regard this as a very serious event indeed, and I can give the assurance both to my noble friend and to the Security Forces that we do so regard it and will so treat it. On the question of the inquiry now in hand, which will begin physically on Monday, the prison in quesion is the only remand prison in Northern Ireland. It may be for question—and indeed I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to my noble friend's suggestion—that there should be a different use for the Maze Prison. But what we are concerned with is what went wrong in the remand prison. The closer the terms of the inquiry, the quicker the result, and it is important to prevent this happening again. Of course my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is fully aware of the importance of co-operation in security matters across the border and, indeed, the desirability of extradition procedures, and that will not be lost sight of.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to raise one further question relating exclusively to the inquiry. Mention was made of the possibility that Mr. Pearce's remit might extend to other prisons in Northern Ireland. In view of the obvious urgency of this particular escape from the Crumlin Road prison, can the noble Lord assure the House that Mr. Pearce's remit is concerned only with the escape that took place from that prison?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is the remit as I now understand it. I have merely undertaken to draw this aspect of the question to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, like the noble Lord, I believe that this is a matter of urgency and we do not want something going on for a very long time.
Earl Erne: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Brookeborough on his very apt questions, I should like to ask my noble friend if he is aware that the level of violence in the border areas—and I speak as a Fermanagh man—is by no means at a tolerable level? This latest incident will only make things worse.
Lord Elton: My Lords, no level of violence is acceptable. Every step will be taken to put the matter right.

Transport Bill
4.27 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 79.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to return your Lordships to the unhappy subject matter before us, that of road accidents, and continue our debate on my noble friend's Amendment No. 79. Since this most controversial proposal was first put before Parliament we have discussed it some 11 times in one House or another. I am as anxious as any other noble Lord to avoid a repetition of all the reasons why I still remain opposed to such legislation. I invite your Lordships to reject this amendment.
In this country we consider it quite wrong for anyone to sell a product on the basis of a false or misleading claim. I believe that that is what is happening here this afternoon. The proponents of compulsion are trying to promote this amendment with a mixture of half truths, selected statistics and, frankly, bald, emotional appeals. I am sure that their motives are of the highest. Certainly neither I nor anybody else in your Lordships' House or probably, indeed, outside, can doubt the absolute sincerity of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and his noble friends who support the argument. However, at this moment, as in the past, they are putting forward a false prospectus which we should not accept.
First, they have said that the compulsory wearing of seat belts has resulted in remarkable reductions in car deaths and serious injuries in overseas countries where compulsion has been introduced. They quote and have done so quite consistently—and again this afternoon—particularly Australia and New Zealand. But when I asked in your Lordships' House on 20th May for authoritative figures with regard to both of those countries and others it was regretted by my noble friend the Minister that at that time he was not able to provide those figures for New Zealand and Australia. He did, however, produce some figures for West Germany and Sweden. I totally accept that those figures need some serious qualification. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said at that time that they were disappointing figures from his point of view and that a full and proper analysis should perhaps take place. The bald figures that were placed before us were minimal. Yet, since that time—I appreciate, of course, that it is only a short time—no further facts have been put before the country, your Lordships, or indeed, this Committee this afternoon. Certainly those earlier claims that have been made go nowhere at all to justify the general claim that pro
336
ponents of compulsion make. My noble friend the Minister produced no fact, with the one exception of his reference to one report produced by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
Secondly, over the years—and, again, I have little doubt that it will be said this afternoon—much has been said about the serious injury figures. Of course, it is right that we should concentrate endeavours in the area of road safety to reduce these figures. But even the official statistics for serious injury figures fail to make it cleat that any road accident casualty detained in hospital is classified as a serious injury, even though hospitalisation is not because of the seriousness of that injury, but very much more often because of the need to observe to ensure that the injury does not fall in a serious category.
I am suggesting that we have been misled in the past and are likely to be misled again as regards figures of this kind relating to the claims that some members of the medical profession make. It is because those claims are so extravagant that I must quote the one which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in December last year when he was speaking during the course of the Second Reading debate on my noble friend's Private Member's Bill. At col. 910 of Hansard of 15th December the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said:
"Equally, it is indeed sad that one with such an extraordinary and outstanding record of bravery in war and service in peace as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, should see fit to table an amendment which to all intents and purposes negatives an attempt to save the lives of up to 1,000 of our citizens each year, to say nothing of the almost equally tragic maiming of 10 times that number".
That is the kind of emotional appeal with which we have been bombarded over the years. There is no justification at all for a statement of that fact. There is no fact there. Unhappily, maiming afflicts a great number of casualties in road accidents that involve motor vehicles; but equally, when we think of the class of person who uses the road, only a few will be saved by the compulsory wearing of selt belts. We do not have facts before us; we have assessments and reliable estimates—two descriptions that the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Underhill, have both used—which are not backed up by any fact. Indeed, earlier this week we spoke about drink and driving, and as a result of questioning the Government listed one figure only on this subject—one fact—that 30 per cent. of drivers killed in motor accidents have an alcohol content which we consider to be on the verge of drunkenness.
If I were to make my assessment, it would perhaps negate what I am suggesting to your Lordships. I shall reserve that for another day. What we have heard are not facts. If the Committee accept what has been said and if they adopt the stance, "our minds are made up; do not bother us with facts", I suggest that we do an injustice to ourselves, an injustice to this noble House, but even more an injustice which we shall perpetrate on all road users. We cannot make a sensible and reasoned judgment on this matter without facts. We have not had a consultative document since Mr. Peyton's consultative paper in the early 1970s. I believe it is the Government's duty to commission an independent inquiry into this matter so that the facts—whatever they may be—can be put before both Houses of Parliament, which can examine them and make a judgment.

337
There is no doubt that there is a weakness in the compulsion lobby argument. It is not proven; it cannot be proven without facts. However, there is one indisputable figure, that there are 20 million vehicle drivers on the roads of our country. There are probably, on a proportion of car and vehicle occupancy, another 12 million passengers. If the Committee accept this amendment, we shall be legislating for some 35 million people without any facts; we shall be creating a new criminal offence. Many of these people may well be convicted, possibly through forgetfulness, because they think that the risk of prosecution is small, because belts make them uncomfortable or distressed, or because they might resent being forced to do something that bears on their safety only, and not on other road users. I do not think that we have the right to do that this afternoon.
Finally, I would remind the Committee that we have been talking about deterrents to accidents. In no way is a belt a deterrent to an accident. If, on a wave of quite unreasoned emotion, your Lordships accept this new clause, I suggest that from the moment it becomes law there is printed on every seat belt:
"Government warning. This belt does not prevent accidents. Only safe driving can do that".
I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment, No. 79, bringing compulsion into an area where the benefits are not proven.
Lord Avebury: I shall come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in a moment. First, I would point out that it was over four years ago that I introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House entitled the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, which would have had the same effect as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. If one accepts the figures that he gave this afternoon, and if your Lordships had been pleased to pass that Bill in 1977, 2,600 human beings, whose lives have ended on our roads since then, would have survived, and no fewer than 44,000 serious injuries would have been prevented.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, disputes the evidence before us. I regret that very deeply because, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill said, it is one thing to talk about whether or not we are violating individual freedom in introducing an element of compulsion, but it is something quite different to rebut all the evidence which has been produced over not a few years but a couple of decades which has conclusively established that the wearing of seat belts does materially affect the chances of a driver or a passenger being killed, or suffering serious injury.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, complains that no figures have been produced this afternoon. That is only because, as he remarked himself, this matter has been debated in your Lordships' House on many previous occasions and in another place, and the figures have been repeated ad nauseam. But certainly, if he wants to, one could go into the Australian experience. I know that I shall be unpopular for mentioning any figures at all, but just to show the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there is evidence, may I remind him that when compulsory seat belt wearing was first introduced in Australia it came in the State of Victoria before the rest of the country adopted it?
338
Therefore, one had a comparison between the casualty experience in Victoria and in the rest of Australia which was acting, if you like, as a control group. It was found that seat belt wearing rates increased from 25 per cent. to 65 per cent. outside Melbourne, and to 75 per cent. in the city. The result of that was a drop of 17·7 per cent. in fatalities and 14·8 per cent. in serious injuries, during a time when the rest of Australia suffered an increase in mortalities and serious injuries. I do not want to produce the rest of the evidence, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well that there is a mass of statistics coming not only from Australia and New Zealand but from countries such as Belgium in Europe which show conclusively that the case is established.
Why, after all, would all these organisations seek to mislead the public? Can one imagine such an absurd proposition about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, the Department of Transport, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, and even the Royal Automobile Club—because I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who reminded us that although they are against compulsion they do not deny the fact that the wearing of seat belts is a highly effective means of saving life and injury. So that all these organisations, according to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the facts from the public and to distort the deductions that one can draw from this mass of evidence.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving way. I really must protest that I did not accuse any organisation of a conspiracy. Indeed, I am a vice-president of RoSPA, and RoSPA know full well that I hold a contrary view. There is no conspiracy with RoSPA or anybody else, and it is quite wrong for the noble Lord to impute that accusation to me.
Lord Avebury: What alternative hypothesis could the noble Lord suggest then? He says that there are not any facts, and yet RoSPA, of which he is a vice-president, and all these other organisations I have mentioned, say that there are facts. I have mentioned a couple of them. If the noble Lord really wants to he can go to RoSPA, to the BMA, and he will soon find himself with boxes full of papers such as I have in my office, all pointing to the same conclusion. What the noble Lord is saying in effect, although I agree he did not use these words, is that these organisations are trying to distort the meaning of the figures which have been collected so carefully by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, and which have been given to the public so that they can find out for themselves whether the claims that are made for the wearing of seat belts are true.
I think that it is universally agreed, except for one or two people like Sir Ronald Bell and the noble Lord, with the powerful addition recently of Mr. Adams, who take the contrary view. Since Mr. Adams is being so much prayed in aid, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the letter in today's issue of The Times from Dr. G. M. Mackay, the head of the Accident Research Unit at the University of Birmingham. He says:

339
"Mr. Adams's analysis is seriously flawed in its method, factually incorrect in several instances, and the conclusions drawn do not follow from the data analysed".
He goes on to add that Sir Ronald at any rate has introduced the notion that driving behaviour changes for the worse as soon as seat belts are introduced, and that recent research in both Canada and Australia has shown this hypothesis to be wrong, and that drivers do conform to seat belt laws and they actually drive much better than they did beforehand. Certainly this is my experience in countries such as Australia and France, where I have found that the standard of driving has improved over the years and certainly is a very high standard even compared with what it is in this country. I believe that people in this country are as law abiding as Australians or Frenchmen, and that if this legislation were to be passed the incidence of wearing seat belts would increase to the level of 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. which is predicted.
I shall be perfectly honest. I do not wear a seat belt myself. You may say that this is paradoxical. "Why do you advocate wearing seat belts when you do not wear them yourself?" My answer to that is that it shows the necessity for compulsion. I cannot be bothered at the moment, but if there is a law on the statute book that says I must, then I certainly will. I know it is foolish. I know that I should be much better off in my own interest to wear a seat belt, but I think that I am a fairly typical motorist and I am included among the 70 per cent. who are not wearing seat belts at the moment but who would certainly comply with the law if that was introduced.
I very much appreciated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who said that it was a good principle that we should compel people to do as few things as possible, and that it was only with the greatest reluctance that he arrived at the conclusion that in the exceptional circumstances of this case, where so many human lives and so much injury is at stake—if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will allow me to say so without accusing me of emotionalism—compulsion should be introduced.
I agree with libertarianism—and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, spoke almost as a Liberal in this instance —and that laws should make people do as few things as possible. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will remember what Mill said on this subject. He said that the state may not interfere with the freedom of action of the individual except where it is necessary to prevent harm to others. This debate is being conducted on the basis that we are only compelling people to wear seat belts for their own safety, whereas in fact this is not the whole of the truth. If a person can maintain control of a vehicle through wearing a seat belt, he may be able to stop his vehicle from ploughing into a queue of children at a bus stop; he may be able to arrest the vehicle before it collides with some hard object, and thereby save the passengers in his car. It certainly is not true that the only person's life or safety at stake is that of the driver of the vehicle.
I fervently beg your Lordships to let Lord Nugent's amendment go through, because it will in fact yield the huge reductions which are claimed of it. It will not
340
violate human rights or civil liberties, and it will be a blessing to the motorist and to the general public who use the roads in our country. We have debated this matter on many occasions. We have always agreed with the facts, with a few exceptions such as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and it is now time at last that we fell into line with the rest of the world and adopted this civilised practice.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Parry: Whether or not we speak to a false prospectus, whether or not we deal in half truths, whether or not we seek to mislead this House in the opinion of some noble Lords, it should surely be understood in this place, in this Committee, and in this country at this time that we believe what we say; that we have a case that is researched; that we have a case that is based on fact; that those facts have been put many times. In one uncontroversial statement in a highly contentious and emotional contribution to this debate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that we have debated this matter many times. We have indeed.
I see that we debated it on the afternoon of 26th April 1977. I see, too, from the columns of the relevant parliamentary record, that I gave to your Lordships on that day three other dates of significance in my own life and to this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has put before us. I have a feeling that this House is about to make up its mind and give good leadership to the nation at this time. I want nothing that I say to interfere with the possibility that, when the vote is taken, it will at last come down in favour of the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
I appreciate that there are noble Lords who fear the attitude of compulsion, and there are those who react instinctively against the word "compulsion" when it is used. Therefore I want to drop the use of that word from my contribution, which will brief, and to remind your Lordships, as I believe I have every right to do, of three dates in my life in the context of this debate.
At 8.20 on the evening of 28th August, 1965 I was the front seat passenger in a Hillman Minx motor-car travelling down a steep hill called Arnolds Hill into Haverfordwest. Within moments, I was involved, as was my driver and many others, in a multiple car smash that left me viciously and brutally injured, and the results of those injuries are getting worse all the time. I deny any charge of allowing emotion to come into this; I am putting this relatively in the context of the statistics that we can all quote. As I say, I was viciously and savagely injured, and my injuries have got worse every day of my life since then.
In the early afternoon of Tuesday, 7th September, 1965, only 10 days after that event, my father was travelling in the front seat of an older type Ford motor-car that was allowed at that time to have a collapsible back seat. That car was travelling not at the 60 mph that the one in which I was injured was travelling, but at 28 mph, and it was in collision with a car that approached it from the side. My sister, who was a rear seat passenger, was thrown forward by the dynamics—by the physics, not by the emotion of the situation—and she was hurled into my father's back

341
as, by the impetus, he was hurled forward into the facia of the car. His sternum was detached from his ribs and he died in hospital beside me, where he had come to visit me. I deny emotion; that is a fact, as much a fact as any statistic put before your Lordships.
On the afternoon of Saturday, 3rd June, 1972, I was sitting in my car beside an inexperienced driver who applied the brakes at a moment of mechanical failure. The car turned over two and a half times and, as a result, all of us would have been very badly injured if we had not learned the lesson of those other two accidents. We were taken from the car, which was virtually destroyed by what had happened, uninjured because, in my contention—I will argue this with anyone factually in terms of the geometry and solid physics of that situation—had we not been belted, we could not have been other than as savagely injured as I had been some years before.
Professor Adams' thesis has been questioned here and it has been questioned by Geoffrey Grimes. It is one of those unexplained things contributory to this debate. I do not deny Professor Adams the right to make the statements he does; nor do I accuse him of issuing half truths; nor do I believe it contributes much to this debate or to the feeling of the Committee to deal in such accusations. It is only a contribution to a debate which is rolling forward.
As for an issue which has not been touched on in the debate, that of children's seat belts and harnesses, it seems that even wearing an adult brace in the front seat prevents some of the injuries to some of the children so travelling. I go no further than that. I say, as I have heard it said in this House before, that a great deal of work has to be done into studying the design of seat belts, into the structure of cars and into the whole matter of seeing whether we can, without compulsion, find ways of making the motor-car a safer vehicle for the human body.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is a great friend of mine—he and I talk about these things emotionally and unemotionally outside this Chamber—had a father who was a much respected racing driver. I doubt very much whether any racing driver (the noble Lord may ask me to give way and tell me I am wrong; I am prepared to take the risk) would go on circuit anywhere today without wearing the harness which we have come to accept as vital. Indeed, the other afternoon, by virtue of work I do elsewhere, I found myself in a rally car. It was being prepared for the Welsh International Rally at West Park. Pinar Oricola, the Finnish expert who is a champion rally driver, strapped me into the seat beside him so tightly that I was uncomfortable. He placed a helmet on my head and did the same for himself. Then he reached across, shook me by the hand and said, "Good luck". And being a Welsh Baptist, I did not trust only to luck or the seat harness; I asked for help from other quarters as we took off to go round that circuit at 134 mph.
There was no question of compulsion on that occasion, just common sense; the sort of thing we do for our own kids, the sort of thing that once the facts are brought home to us we cannot help but do. Can your Lordships help at this time but take the decision that is sensible and reasonable to take all the precautions we can until we have solved the problems of dynamics
342
and physics and made the motor-car a more reasonable vehicle for the frail human body?
4.56 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, we have been given many statistics, but one we have not had—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can help with this—is how many deaths have been caused by the wearing of seat belts. For instance, what if one drives into a canal or river or one's car catches fire? I understand it is believed that quite a number of deaths have occurred because drivers were unable to get out of their vehicles because they were wearing seat belts. No statistics of that kind have been produced in the debate so far.
I accept that in certain cases the wearing of seat belts can save lives. For example, in the case of a frontal collision, provided one is not driving too fast—say, two cars each travelling at 20 mph giving an impact at 40—then, if one is wearing a seat belt, one will probably be saved. On the other hand, if two cars travelling at 50 or 60 mph collide, one will be killed anyway whether one is wearing a seat belt or not.
Lord Parry: That is not so, my Lords.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I know what I am talking about, my Lords; I used to race cars and I have driven in Grand Prix races. Indeed, one reason why racing drivers are strapped in—remembering that a racing driver will not have cars coming towards him, thank goodness—is for the sake of one's inside because one might strain oneself as a result of the tremendous acceleration when going round corners. Be that as it may, one cannot compare race driving with ordinary driving on the roads.
We must also remember that if one is involved in a frontal accident one can take avoiding action by throwing oneself away from the steering wheel—that is, if one is not wearing a seat belt. A great number of injuries and deaths occur in frontal accident because the steering column goes into the driver's chest. If one can avoid that happening by throwing oneself to one side that is all to the good, but of course if one is wearing a seat belt one cannot take that sort of avoiding action.
If it can be proved statistically that lives can be saved by wearing seat belts then of course the freedom argument does not come into it and we must have compulsion. We have lost enough of our freedoms in this country in the last 20 years or so not to worry about losing a little more if it means saving people's lives, so I would be all for compulsion if the case can be statistically proved and it can be shown conclusively that people's lives are saved. However, I do not consider that it has been proved.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned Australia and the situation there, and it would seem that the case has been proven there, but I understand that in other countries the compulsory wearing of seat belts has not resulted in injuries being decreased. Indeed, I understand that in one or two countries there have been more injuries. Thus, we cannot consider the case to have been proved, and until it has been

343
statistically proved I do not feel able to support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Strauss: I wish to intervene for only a few minutes. I have taken a great interest in this problem for over 30 years, ever since the time under the Attlee Government when, on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, I was in charge of its very intensive road safety campaign; and I believe that we did some good. One of the conclusions that we all reached as a result of the campaign, and after the spending of millions of pounds, was that what you can do by education and exhortation is limited, and after a certain stage no benefit results and some form of compulsion is necessary. That was true then, and I am perfectly certain that it is true today.
No one has this afternoon, nor I believe on any other occasion, questioned the fact that the wearing of seat belts does save lives. The total number of casualties among drivers who wear seat belts and are involved in accidents is half of the total of those involved in accidents and who do not wear seat belts. Therefore, today the problem is not really a statistical one; that is accepted by everybody. It is a philosophical problem, and the argument is, "All right, we admit that the wearing of seat belts would be a good thing and would save lives. The RAC agrees with that. But we think that on philosophical grounds it would be wrong to use compulsion to make people do this". We are all very keen not to violate our liberties, the liberties of the citizen; though I must say that among the liberties that we have I do not place very high the liberty to smash up oneself in a motor accident.
The argument that is put forward by those who oppose compulsion is, as I understand it, briefly as follows. If an individual who wishes to be careless and not do what is obviously right or what he is advised to do, involved himself in an accident and is seriously hurt or killed, well, that is his own fault. No one but he is injured or affected and he should not have been so silly, but to compel him to do something which he does not want to do, where the consequences will affect not other people but only himself, is wholly wrong.
I suggest that that is a wholly fallacious argument. If a driver is seriously injured or killed in an accident, he is not the only victim. A large number of people are likely to be affected. Some of these people might be killed because, as one noble Lord said, the driver on losing control of the vehicle, might run into others if he is not wearing a seat belt. But what about all those other people who are involved when a driver is seriously injured or killed? What about the man's wife and children, other relatives, and friends? What about the wife who might have to suffer for the rest of her life in looking after a husband who is incapacitated, mentally or physically? What about the children who can no longer be dependent on their father? Surely these people are sufferers from the faults and stupidity of someone who has not worn a seat belt when he ought to have done, someone who has taken the view, as do so many people, "An accident won't happen to me; it happens to others".
Therefore I suggest to your Lordships' Committee that a serious accident has a rippling effect, it is not
344
confined to the person who is injured. The medical services are involved, with extra strain put on doctors and nurses. Other patients are also involved. Such people might not be able to go into hospital for vital treatment because all the beds are taken up by people who have been seriously injured in motor accidents.
Please do not let us consider this as a question of liberty which affects only the individual concerned; it is nothing of the kind. By the way, it is a violation of liberty that is not so terribly serious. It does not undermine the democratic constitutional practices of our country. All it does at the worst is cause a little nuisance or inconvenience; that is all. Even though some people might unwillingly have to suffer the inconvenience or nuisance, I think it right that Parliament, and today your Lordships' Committee, should on behalf of the community as a whole, say that people who are liable to injure or kill themselves through careless driving, everybody in fact, should be forced to use seat belts so as to prevent wide-ranging injuries, not necessarily fatal injuries, to very many innocent and decent citizens in our country. Therefore I hope that after discussing this problem over and over again—I have taken part in the debate on it whenever I could—your Lordships will take steps to ensure that this reasonable and sensible provision will at last become the law of the land.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Porritt: First, I should like to resume the courtesies of your Lordships' Chamber, which we appreciate so much. As co-sponsor of the amendment I wish most strongly and warmly to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Whatever might be our views on the subject—and I do not think that they are nearly as contentious as would seem from the debate so far—we would all admire the noble Lord's pertinacity and perseverance in carrying on with this measure from year to year, from session to session; to him it must seem almost illimitable. I feel that today he has at last brought us to a point of decision; I sincerely hope so.
I should like to suggest that the speeches we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Bellwin, and Lord Underhill, were absolutely admirable. They put a point of view which is fair, equitable. There was nothing at all rabid in what they said. They admitted that there is a strong case on the other side, but they put the advantages of the amendment. This is surely what we want. We want to keep cool. Any rabid statements on the subject will do no good at all. As I think has already been said, this is not really a selt belt argument; it is not a medical argument. It is a philosophical argument, it is a moral argument. So let us keep cool about it and see what we can decide.
I would suggest that the amendment is about as flexible as we can make it. It copes, perhaps indirectly and a little vaguely, with every possible objection, except the one which is the bone of contention: the compulsory element in the wearing of seat belts. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee will appreciate that we are already in a state of déjà vu. All the things that have been talked about have been talked about several times before. We have seen it all before, and I thought that we might have begun this afternoon's

345
debate with that very well-known quotation from Henry V:
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends".
Perhaps I may carry on with the quotation, since I feel it is quite apt. Members of your Lordships' Committee might remember that it continues:
"Or close the wall up with our English dead!"
All that has happened since we last discussed this subject is that we have been talking around it. We have not got any further, but a decision is undoubtedly overdue. I shall not stress the backing that the proponents of the amendment have. The Committee has heard of all the illustrious bodies that have expressed a view. This is surely a consensus of opinion which we must recognise. These people are not fools, and they have come down heavily in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
I feel that previously we have been dragging our feet. We have not been willing to make up our minds. Although we have definite opinions one way or the other, we have not decided what to do about it. The purposes of the exercise are really extremely simple and quite fundamental. They do not depend on figures, statistics, which, as we have seen this afternoon, can be juggled with quite easily by various people on both sides, in order to use them as they wish. But if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wants figures well, heaven's above! whether or not he gets them from the department, I can give him hundreds. He might not believe them, but that does not matter.
I do not believe the figures on the other side very much because I know what figures can do if they are properly treated. The only figures I am interested in are human, physical figures, which have been knocked about by unnecessary road accidents.
The noble Lord also said that I made an emotional speech. I willingly agree to that. It was emotional and dramatic, and it was deliberate. The first time I spoke on this subject I spoke, as I hope I do as a rule, fairly logically, quietly and typically. It got nowhere at all. On the second occasion I painted a glorious picture of blood and thunder as best I could. What happened? We won by two to one. It was not due to me, but that was the atmosphere produced. This is wrong.
Let us be quite sensible as to what we are getting at. We know—and nothing can deny it—that the fundamental purposes of this amendment are to try to save approximately 1,000 lives of our fellow citizens every year; and, perhaps just as important, to try to prevent 10 times that number getting damaged and disfigured. Because whatever may be said, and figures irrespective, everybody in a hospital knows that the toll of grief and despair goes on. There is also a vast loss of economic wealth to this country, particularly in the loss of work-days, and very much, as has already been mentioned, by way of the damage that is done to the ordinary functions of the National Health Service. There is no doubt that the vast number of injuries—unnecessary injuries—that occur load up the Health Service to the great detriment of large numbers of more deserving patients.
I think the case for the compulsory wearing of seat belts is incontrovertible, and that it does not depend,
346
as I say, on statistics. It depends on what happens in hospitals and in homes, and the tragedy of it all when it could be stopped. Some of the arguments against the wearing of seat belts have been mentioned this afternoon. Perhaps I may, just to clear my own mind, run through them very briefly. It is said that deaths occur from the wearing of seat belts. Yes, we are not denying that. But how few? I think it was mentioned this afternoon. One in a thousand? It is a risk. Life without risk is not worth living, I am sure your Lordships will agree; and a risk of one in a thousand is a risk we ought to take.
Another interesting argument which has not yet been mentioned this afternoon is the one which concerns deaths from drowning and fire. As a matter of fact, this has taken a slight turn since we last talked about it, because these occur, too. Nobody is denying that; but they are to an even less degree than the number of deaths through the wearing of seat belts. You can never prove these things (how can you prove what happened to a dead person?) but what has had good evidence produced in its favour is that if you are wearing a seat belt in a car that goes into water or bursts into flame, then because you are still conscious and because you are still, we hope, relatively uninjured, then you get a chance to get yourself out. If you are unconscious and damaged, you have had it. So there is something to be said, even in those dramatic conditions, for wearing a seat belt. Let me squash once and for all the myth that if you are thrown out of a car you are safer than being held in it by a seat belt. You are not. The odds are at least two to one against you. That is quite definite, and does not admit of argument.
There has been talk about the enforcement difficulty. The police do not agree with this. They are not worried about this at all. I think that when I last spoke I gave your Lordships the example of what happened in Australia. This, as I have said, is a country worth mentioning because the Australians are a little resistant to legislation as a rule, to say the least of it. They took to the compulsory wearing of seat belts within a year—quietly, comfortably and completely. If you believe in figures at all, the figures are there. The death rate has fallen, and the injury rate has fallen very markedly. I think it is a matter of temperament—national temperament, if you like—but I just cannot believe that the British temperament will not react in the same way, and that in one year the putting on of seat belts, if they are made compulsory wearing, will be, as it is as a rule, completely reflex. Somebody has said already this afternoon that this is so. You automatically put on your seat belt once you get used to it. It will be a week or a month or a few months before you do, but then you do it; and police enforcement is not very important after that.
The difficulty of claustrophobia and other genuine ailments—and I would underline the word "genuine" because this is a nettlebed of trouble—I think has been coped with indirectly in the amendment. The fact that voluntary wearing is not sufficient has also been mentioned. It has been amply proved, of course, that even with the expenditure of millions of pounds on educational propaganda you cannot do better than

347
30 per cent., at the maximum, and that is not good enough.
So we come back to the question of freedom of choice. I think one other fact has come out since we last spoke about this, because it was questioned as to whether it was legally constitutional to pass this. I gather counsel's opinion is strongly on the side of it being legally constitutional, so that is one good point that we need not worry about. It has already been mentioned this afternoon that all that we do in your Lordships' House and in the other place is restrict people. That is what legislation is. Here is a restriction, admittedly; one is not denying it is a restriction. But it is a restriction which is going to do an enormous good to the community. So, surely, it is a restriction we can accept without worrying too much about it. If your Lordships knew that there was a man going around with a loaded revolver who wanted to use it, I hope your Lordships would say that he was a reasonable candidate for restriction. A motorcar is an infinitely more lethal weapon than a loaded revolver. I think the moral is there.
The only other thing I want to say about the restriction of freedom of action is this. Even if you do allow the freedom not to wear a seat belt, it is very often not even a conscious choice that is made. It is made from frustration or carelessness—something else completely. It is not a conscious saying, "I am not wearing my seat belt because I do not want to restrict my freedom". That is not what is said. It is just laziness; it is an unthought-about, unconscious act. Before I sit down, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that any remark I made about the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was not made personally, of course. He is a great friend. It was made in view of the speech that he made the last time we discussed this.
All I feel—and it is a very simple feeling—is that the value of human life is infinitely greater than the value of a freedom to make a choice. I may be quite wrong in this, but it is as simple as that to me. I value life enormously, and nothing else has any value, or has relatively little value, compared with the value of life. I would therefore hope that your Lordships will not squabble about this but will discuss it and come to the definite decision, as I hope will be the case this evening, to give a carefully thought-out, humane, logical and constructive answer to this amendment in the affirmative.
Lord Redesdale: Perhaps I may make positively one of the shortest speeches in your Lordships' Committee in support of this amendment. I believe it is of the greatest value. I am surprised, I have to confess, that some noble Lords, for whom I have the greatest respect, should introduce so much emotion to try to counter it. I am very saddened by that. All I would say is this. Nobody is particularly worried that in an MOT test they have to have workable windscreen wipers, workable windscreen washers and rear lights that work. All these things they might object to in terms of a restriction on freedom, but they accept that they are necessary. In fact, wearing seat belts would save many more lives than any of these other "add-ons" to one's motorcar. I believe your Lordships should look at this very carefully before being swayed by the emotion shown by some of those people who
348
feel that the liberty involved outweighs the lives that would be saved.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: Having listened to excellent speeches on both sides of this question, I am still not satisfied that I feel I am safe if I wear my seat belt. I should like to say why. It is a personal reason, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Parry. I was in an aircraft that crashed and I could not be got out because the buckle of my seat belt buckled. Had the plane burnt, I should have been burnt to a cinder and not be addressing your Lordships today. I should like to make two suggestions. One is that if we are to have seat belts—and many people wear them and I wear them myself sometimes, although they are not comfortable—I think they ought to be standardised and then we should not have to puzzle how to put the seat belt on, how to take it off, how to make it comfortable; for then it would be the same in any kind of car that one got into.
The second point I should like to make, is that, having been pinned, I think there should be some thought given to a quick release-system. By that, I do not mean simply that the passenger presses something and hopes that the belt is released. I am thinking of something for the rescuer who finds the passenger or the driver pinned underneath part of the car. The rescuer has to be able to get at the top of the safety belt reel and release it in some way. I leave it to others to explain the practicalities. I feel that there must be some way which would enable any rescuer to know at once what to do. It is very frightening to feel that you can be pinned. Some of my friends who wear seat belts carry a knife with them because they realise that the only way of getting out if they were pinned would be for somebody to cut the webbing.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I should like to refer to enforcement. It has been mentioned three times and I feel that the difficulty of enforcement has rather been swept aside. It is irrelevant to compare the enforcement over seat belts with a check when the car is stationary to see whether the windscreen wiper works or not.
This task will fall on the police and add to the daily work of every one of the 125,000 police constables in this country. The responsibility is theirs and nobody else's No one can say that they are not overworked already. We are adding to the labours of this body of men whose work is extremely important at this time. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was courteous and told me that what he referred to as the police point of view was what he obtained from the three representative bodies of the police in this country. In our case, he said this was the majority view. But there is no real police point of view in this country because we do not have a national police force. The headquarters of these bodies may have expressed a view but we do not know how they arrived at it any more than in some of the TUC decisions where there is a block vote; if I may say so.
Naturally the police would like to reduce the time and effort demanded of them when there are major road accidents, particularly on the motorways; and the same will go for the ambulance and other services. But if we add to their work, as we are adding to it under

349
this proposed amendment, we are reducing the time they have for other duties. Because of the nature of the enforcement task that we are giving them it is going to be uncertain, and therefore unequal, and therefore unfair.
The Germans, who are a very thorough people, faced this problem some time ago. I have been in touch with them when I have been over there. Before they legislated in this field, any police officer stopping a vehicle (for whatever reason) and noticing that the driver was not wearing a seat belt gave him a postcard with a cartoon on it to remind him that he ought to develop the habit of wearing a seat belt, for it would not be long before the law required it. Now they have gone a stage further and have legislated, but there is no penalty. This seems to me a particularly unsatisfactory condition unless it is only for a given term.
While this amendment has been referred to as flexible, if the amendment is accepted and the Minister has to draft regulations there should be some experimental approach so that we can see how it will work in practice. Further, if this rule is to be accepted then the enforcement must be fair and equal. That is the problem which at present no noble Lord who has spoken has faced; and it seems to me that it is one which presents many difficulties.
Lord Gore-Booth: I speak, I hope at minimum length, from the position of somebody who has been converted from no seat belts to seat belt, and not through running into anybody or being run into. If you use an automobile for driving, in business or otherwise, around the world a certain amount you will find that you run into differences of practice at this time in the world's history. If you do not have an ability to put on a seat belt—that is, if you do not have one and it is not available—then you go suddenly from a country where you do not need to wear one to a country where you do need to wear one, and you are in a jam which you did not expect. I do not suppose many people are as foolish as that.
If you say that you want to be in the one which has the most utilitarian advantage, it seems to me that there is no competition between the two, because you will need the seat belt somewhere. You will need it when you cross frontiers; you will need it in positions of particular danger and difficulty and the non-seat belt is not going to provide you with that. Therefore, you take away from yourself something which gives you a complete viability round the world and (nobody has argued that this does not happen) some facility which, contrary to all your expectations and all your skills, is going to land you in difficulties, and then you are infinitely better off—and I should have thought this was quite clear from the beginning—if you are provided with a seat belt.
I do not see how you can arrive at any different condition. That is an opinion from somebody who has been converted from one point of view to the other. I most urgently appeal to those people who may still be in doubt that, on this very practical point, the vote must come down in favour of making yourself that much safer than you would otherwise be. It is as simple as that.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: I am against the principle of this amendment and I have been against it since 1972 when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, introduced it as an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill. He was defeated, I think, on that occasion, not by me but by your Lordships. First, I am against compulsion. All cars, but practically no lorries, are fitted with belts of varying designs. Some work, some do not. But in no case, as far as I can ascertain, can belts be released from the doorposts. It is absolutely essential that they should be to enable the occupant to be rescued following an accident. Some noble Lords this afternoon have thrown out the advice of Professor Adams of London University. Why do we not throw out his advice and take that of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory? I am afraid I am not able to know that. It is one of those matters where politicians can make statistics prove whatever they want them to prove.
Professor Adams, in his own survey, has surveyed Germany, Belgium, Holland and Denmark. All those countries have introduced legislation making belt-wearing compulsory. In all these countries the number of people who died in crashes rose. He has attributed that—and it is open for discussion—to a false sense of security and people taking risks because they were wearing seat belts. We know that that can be a fact.
Why should road users be compelled to do something of which they strongly disapprove? Secondly, it is a waste of police time. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that so well. Under the terms of this clause or by regulations made by the Minister, many people will be exempted. It seems that under subsection (2)(b)(i) a long-distance lorry driver can take his laden vehicle to the destination unbelted but on returning empty he has to wear a belt. I spoke to a long-distance lorry driver yesterday. I shall not tell the Committee the words he used in his rather vocal vocabulary. But he said that the reason he does not want to wear a belt is that on impact he is frightened of being trapped. If he did not wear a seatbelt he could throw himself across the other seat and save himself from injury.
Under subsection (2)(b)(iii) if you cannot prove by a medical certificate that you are pregnant, a doctor may be persuaded that you suffer from claustrophobia or are obese and will give you a certificate. If a police officer sees you without a belt, he may have to travel some distance before he stops and questions you. You then say that you have an exemption certificate at home. He has to note all the particulars and you have to give the name of a police station at which to show the certificate within five days. A great deal of trouble and goodwill is lost by all parties.
My third reason is that it is not enforceable. Any law which the House of Lords passes that is not enforceable is in my humble view a bad law. We are told that in Australia and Canada, where the system has been introduced, road users on many occasions put on straps over their shoulders but do not fasten them. There are so many infringements that it is quite impossible to enforce the law in those countries. I suggest that the same would happen here. This amendment would be very unpopular, forcing road users to do something they can do anyway, if they believe it to be right by the fact of so many exemptions

351
which may well be a source of discord between the police and the public which none of us wants to see.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: The noble Baroness has stated what might be regarded as the classical case against the amendment. She has stated that she is against compulsion. That is what the amendment is all about. I am also against compulsion. I have been against compulsion all my life, and see where it has got me! If I had been more disciplined I might have gone a long way. The same might be said of us all. Why oppose discipline and law and order? We hear about it every day from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor more than anybody else, and rightly so for we would expect it. We all believe in law and order and discipline. We all believe in obeying the law. What is more particular in this context, we all believe in accepting the Highway Code. But is that the compulsion? Does anyone object to the Highway Code? Does anyone object to the green lights, the red lights or no lights at all? Of course we resent it. Of course people resent being ordered about; that is only natural. But unless we are ordered about at some time and asked to do what is expected of us, what kind of society are we going to live in?
We either want a civilised society or one that is not. I regret to have to say—because I have tremendous affection for our country—that I sometimes think we are living in an uncivilised society. One has only to read the newspapers, listen to the broadcasting media, and all the rest of it, and use one's powers of observation to realise what society we are living in. I know that there are bright features. I mentioned one the other day when I happened to be involved in a programme, as it happens, on music when I said I wished they could bring the former Promenade Concerts back in order to demonstrate how bright our young people are if only they can get an opportunity. This is what we want.
I had to leave the Chamber at one stage on request, but I listened to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He showed knowledge, sincerity and integrity and it is almost blasphemy to oppose him. Nevertheless I do so. His case and the case of many others opposed to the amendment is entirely on the lines developed by the noble Baroness. I leave statistics out of it. One can prove anything by statistics. We all know about that. We use them from time to time and then we reject them. We get mixed up with our statistics as indeed the Government have got mixed up with statistics. One day they promise this and the next day they withdraw that. But I accept it and I do not complain about it. There was an election some time ago, and the Government got in. We have to accept it. There was a democratic election; the people of this country voted in favour of the present Government. Dislike it as I do, there it is. I have to accept it. Is that not compulsion? What can I do? If I can accept the Government of Mrs. Thatcher I can accept even seat belts!
Somebody said—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who made a wonderful speech—that this was a philosophical argument. It is not and it is not an emotional one. It is just a commonsense one. What is commonsense about it? It is not a question of how many lives are going to be saved. How can you tell?
352
It is not a question of that at all. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to enforcement of this amendment. The police will have to be occupied, but they have been occupied all the time because of the accidents that have occurred. They have been looking for people driving without licences and escorting people to be breathalysed. Surely they can, in the course of that operation, ask drivers why they are not wearing their seat belts, and do it in the most polite fashion as is expected of them.
I shall not waste time. There has been too much time wasted on this subject. There has been debate after debate. The time has come to reach a decision. I can understand the revulsion of feeling on the part of many colleagues on both sides of the Committee against the concept of being forced to do something that they do not want to do. I have to suffer it every day of my life. It becomes part of one's life; but one has now and again to realise that there are some things one has to accept.
If the House of Lords decides in its wisdom—and we have wisdom and we have common sense—that this amendment should pass, that is the end of that part of the story. We leave it to the Minister, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, and leave it to the Secretary of State to deal with any regulations that are required and any amendments that ought to be embodied in the legislation, and we do it in a commonsense fashion. Do not use it in too dictatorial or tyrannical a fashion but do it in the way we all expect, and that is in the sense of common sense.
Lord Hunt of Fawley: As a practising doctor, I have been interested in seat belts for a long time and I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for the kind words he said about me at the beginning of his speech. I have been away for five months with an illness which has prevented my attending your debates, but I have had every word of them read out to me and I have been asked to make a short speech on how what has been said already fits in with the amendment we have been discussing today. My illness has left me registered as a blind person.
There has been a worldwide campaign for the wearing of seat belts. One of my sons, who is in medical practice in Vancouver, has a notice on the back of his car: "Belt Up and Live". That is a simple way of saying in four words what some of us here today believe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, said, feelings towards seat belts depend very much upon our own personal experience. In a family which has had one of its members burnt to death by fire in a car because he did not undo his seat belt, members of that family will be against seat belts for a long time. On the other hand, somebody driving along the fast lane of a motorway the other day put the brakes on suddenly, the car behind jammed into him, the passenger's door jerked open and his fiancée was thrown out and spreadeagled in the road, where a passing car decapitated her. That family will be in favour of seat belts always. I believe there are clubs for those who believe that their lives have been saved by wearing seat belts and clubs for those who believe that their lives have been saved by not wearing them. But it is significant that it has been suggested that if this amendment becomes law the Secretary of State might

353
be prepared to compensate anyone who has an accident or who dies as a result of wearing a seat belt. That is in one amendment, but I do not know whether it will be passed.
The main objective of this amendment is to save life and to reduce suffering, but certain secondary objectives will tend to be helpful. It would let motorists know exactly where they stand under the law and also it would assist policemen, magistrates, judges, juries and insurance companies to assess, when a man has had an accident, how much compensation he is to get, depending on whether or not he had obeyed the law and worn a seat belt.
Criticisms have been mentioned, of course. The first is impairment of personal liberty. That is a very important one, but there is no quicker or more permanent way of impairing personal liberty than having a fatal motor smash. We already have all sorts of rules such as driving on the left and obeying traffic lights, speeding restrictions and so on; and we should quite easily become accustomed to a new law if it saves lives.
As regards enforcement, that is important. Absolute enforcement will be quite impossible, as it is in respect of nearly every Act. Partial enforcement will be difficult. There will be conscientious objectors: the family whose friend was burnt in the car may not want to wear seat belts and, as has been said, the police will be overburdened with work and there may not be enough money. Exceptions have been mentioned and are mentioned in the amendment—sensible ones which I shall not quote again—and there is room for more. The important thing is to have a reasonable interpretation of every single case when this law is broken. Of course, it may not be broken: most citizens are fairly reasonable people and I am one of those who believe very strongly that a law will increase the number of people who wear seat belts and that most people will obey it.
There will need to be wise and reasonable interpretation. For instance, a doctor who is visiting some patients in a cul-de-sac in a village—perhaps a long road with no exit and along which there is little traffic—may have to visit four patients in that road and will be unlikely to want to put on and take off his seat belt between every house he visits. For a policeman to come up to him and charge him with a criminal act and summarily fine him £50 would be rather a nonsense and would do the law no good.
Human lives are precious and human suffering can be terrible. Those of your Lordships who have suddenly lost dear ones will appreciate that. The figures may not be complete, but all the evidence from all over the world suggests that the wearing of seat belts helps in reducing fatal injuries and in reducing all that the hospitals have to do in connection with road accidents.
Your Lordships have in your hands this afternoon the power to stop a very great number of deaths and to prevent a great deal of suffering. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, has said on another occasion that this proposition is a humane one; it is overdue and it is life-saving. I do agree with him entirely, and so does practically the whole of our medical profession. I beg your Lordships to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in his amendment to the Trans
354
port Bill on the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
Earl Howe: May I—
Lord Denham: I wonder whether I may just intervene for a very, very short time. I do not want to stop any of your Lordships from speaking or to attempt to curtail debate on what your Lordships wish to say. I know that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Howe have been trying to get up for a very long time. But I wonder whether your Lordships on the whole might not feel that after those two speakers have spoken almost everything that could be said has been said on this, and perhaps your Lordships may feel that when those two speakers have spoken it may be time to come to a decision on this very important matter.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Young of Dartington: May I just say that I also have been trying to get up for quite a time and so I hope that I may be added to the list.
Lady Saltoun: It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to hear that I am totally opposed to his amendment. First, as I have said before, I deplore compulsion in regard to the wearing of seat belts because of the dangerous precedent it would set on interference with the freedom of the individual to assess the risk to himself and to decide whether or not to take it. Once you start this kind of thing there is no logical end to it and you are on a very slippery slope indeed.
Secondly, upon several occasions in the past, capital punishment has been debated and rejected in this Chamber and one of the grounds on which it has been rejected is the danger of executing an innocent person. If wearing of seat belts becomes compulsory, a number of innocent persons will be executed inadvertently by Government action. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others who have said that it will be difficult and expensive to enforce this legislation and will take up too much police time. I shall not say any more about that.
But before any compulsion is introduced, it is essential not only that the release mechanism of seat belts be standardised, but that their design, in general, should be improved so that the same belt can be adjusted in order to be comfortable and safe for a variety of sizes and shapes of person. You do not always have the same person driving a car or being a passenger in that car. It is not much use to have a belt which is satisfactory only for one wearer, when it may be unwearable, uncomfortable or even dangerous for another. I rate comfort as very important for a driver. An uncomfortable driver can be a careless or even a dangerous driver.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a letter which appeared in The Times on 2nd January last from Miss Gertrude Thomas, who pointed out the difficulties that some very short women experience in wearing the seat belts which are normally fitted to cars. I shall not read out the letter, in order to save time, but it was in The Times of 2nd January this year. That is just one instance of the poor design of seat

355
belts at present. It will take time and research to overcome this problem and, then further time to manufacture better belts and to get them fitted to all cars. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has evidently been very fortunate with his seat belts, but I have had a different experience and a great deal of discomfort from a seat belt which I had to get changed.
To turn to one small detail, subsection (2)(d) of this amendment sounds like an instance of one law for the rich and another for the poor. I am sure it is not intended to be, but some clarification would be welcome. Finally, if this clause is accepted I hope that any regulations made will be by affirmative instrument, so that they can be debated before coming into force. But I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
5.52 p.m.
Earl Howe: At last! It is not often that I am last in a traffic queue. But my noble friend Lord Nugent has been directing the traffic so very well, and I am very grateful to him and to your Lordships for enabling me to say a few words this afternoon. Thinking that I might not be able to speak, I have been talking to the motoring correspondent of The Times. I did not ask to speak to The Times; they asked to speak to me and I was able to express some of my views to them.
I should just like to say that I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, and I sympathise with him. I should like to say how very sorry I am to hear that his injuries have got worse. But I should like to suggest—not knowing what caused the accident when he was going down the hill, which makes it difficult for me to comment—that it would be wise of him to be careful about whom he drives with.
I shall be brief and blunt in this debate; I am made that way and I cannot help it. We have debated this subject on, I think, four occasions and on three of them we have had a majority against compulsion. That surely must mean something and should not be ignored. The futility of enforcing compulsion must be realised by everyone. I motor a great deal in South Africa and have done so in, I think, six different machines. There they have a compulsory system for wearing seat belts, but they do not wear them. They pay very little attention. I have never yet seen a South African wearing his seat belt; I have never seen a policeman stop a South African on that account, and I think everybody would be much happier if they had the voluntary system that they had before. I understand that in Canada there is total chaos and they do not know what to do about the wearing of seat belts. Some will wear seat belts and some will not.
So it is stupid to think that we could enforce this law. We could not. The only way of enforcing it would be for a policeman in plain clothes to look in cars at every traffic light and see whether the person is wearing a seat belt. If your Lordships think that legislation is any good if it cannot be properly pursued and enforced, then I am surprised. I do not think so. I fought the speed limit on motorways, and I still do, and I believe that anything which is not popular with a large proportion of the motoring population is wrong.
356
I am quite sure that there will be a rush for doctors' certificates for exemption if this amendment goes through, and I hope that it does not. I know that I am sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is a very eminent doctor, but there will be such illnesses and diseases caused by wearing seat belts that cannot expect to get a doctor's certificate. There are certain things which I will not mention, but we all know what they are, which will prevent certain people from wearing seat belts and they will proably not get a doctor's certificate. The whole subject needs far more research and education through peaceful persuasion.
The RAC, of which I am vice-chairman, is opposed to compulsion. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the RAC. I do not expect that he is a member. The other noble Lord who referred to the AA is certainly a member of that organisation but not of the RAC. They expressed their opinions. But the RAC feels that the voluntary system is much better until far more research has been conducted, and until there has been more education of the motorist. That is as far as we will go. We do not dislike what Professor Adams said. What he said may well be very true.
I drive a great deal. My father was a racing driver and I did a little racing myself. Both of us knew a great deal about driving. My father had a very serious accident at Brooklands, right in front of me, and was flung from his ERA on to his head. He was badly injured, but he lived. They did not wear seat belts in those days. When my wife went under a petrol tanker, she was not wearing a belt. She flung herself to one side, the steering wheel was pushed back to where she had been sitting, but she survived.
The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, whom I greatly respect, spoke very well tonight, as he did when we last debated this subject. He told some bloodthirsty stories then, and I told him that I could quote equally bloodthirsty stories about those who wear seat belts. Shortly after the last debate I was asked, to my surprise, whether I would speak on "The Week in Westminster". I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, would be the first choice, but I was and I said what I wanted to say about the subject.
Some of the points I have made may have been slightly irrelevant, but speaking last gives one an opportunity to say quite a bit. I feel that there should be a three-point fixing system on the door pillar of each car. Motorists come in all sizes—tall, fat and thin—and you sometimes get a little man at the wheel of a car. The seat belt can then slip and cut his neck. If you have a three-point fixing system—I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this—it will help enormously and will cope with all sizes of driver. Such measures should be considered before we blast full tilt into this compulsory measure. There are a whole lot of reasons which I shall not mention, but I hope very much that there will be consultation with the RAC. I do not know what one thinks about motor coaches. Will you have to be strapped into a motor coach? Will passengers on trains also have to be strapped in? All this follows in a logical manner from what we are talking about.
No matter what we do, anything that moves at speed will prove to be a risk, depending on the way in which the vehicle is driven and on the skill and experience

357
of the driver. I have spoken to numerous motorists, including surgeons, who do not wear seat belts unless they want to do so. One said to me the other day, "I will wear a seat belt if I want to, but nobody will force me." People say that if a seat belt is in a car, they will wear it if they so wish. That is the real answer to compulsion. Wear a seat belt if it is in the car, and if you so wish. If you do not wish to wear it, then do not. As I said, the whole subject needs far more research.
My noble friend Lord Nugent, far from being a bulldozer himself, is a charming, gentle, quiet fellow. I know him very well indeed. He is president of RoSPA; he is my vice-president and I am vice-chairman of the RAC. But I feel that he has been bulldozed by RoSPA, by the press and by other media into moving this amendment. He will not agree, but that is what I say. This is not the right way to get your own way. We are all entitled to our strongly held opinions and experience. The more I see force exerted in this respect, the more I want to oppose it. In this beautiful country of ours, surely there must be something still left to the motorists' choice. I shall certainly oppose this amendment, which is expected of me as vice-chairman of the RAC. It would mean further legislation for the motorist, who is already harassed by so many rules and regulations, not all of them very sensible.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I think the feeling of the Committee is that we have spoken for long enough. I hope noble Lords on the other side will accept that we have had a very good debate; it has been going for 2½ hours. I do not propose to reply to any of the points which have been made. Every aspect has been covered and I am sure that the Committee is now ready to vote.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132: Not-Contents, 92.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Collison, L.

Amulree, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ardwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Auckland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Avebury, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B.

Banks, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bellwin, L.

Denbigh, E.

Beloff, L.

Denham, L.

Belstead, L.

Denington, B.

Bessborough, E.

Dowding, L.

Birk, B.

Dundee, E.

Bishopston, L.

Eccles, V.

Boston, L.

Elibank, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ferrier, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Fortescue, E.

Byers, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caccia, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gardiner, L.

358

Garner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Hall, V.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rhodes, L.

Hayter, L.

Richardson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Robbins, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Roberthall, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Rochester, L.

Ilchester, E.

Romney, E.

Jacques, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sandford, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Seear, B.

Kearton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Segal, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Listowel, E.

Sherfield, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shinwell, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Longford, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Loudoun, C.

Somers, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stamp, L.

Lyell, L.

Stedman, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strauss, L.

Mais, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mar, C.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Vaizey, L.

Mishcon, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vernon, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

White, B.

Onslow, E.

Wigoder, L.

Oram, L.

Willis, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hale, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Avon, E.

Hartwell, L.

Barrington, V.

Hooson, L.

Boothby, L.

Howe, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hunt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brownlow, L.

Jessel, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Knutsford, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Cross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Davidson, V.

McFadzean, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

de Clifford, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mansfield, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Fisher, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Freyberg, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Geddes, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gormanston, V.

Norfolk, D.

Grantchester, L.

Northchurch, B.

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Grey, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

359

Peart, L.

Stone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Terrington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Teviot L.

Rugby, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Tryon, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Saltoun, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Shannon, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sharples, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Simon, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Spens, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I understand that Amendments Nos. 79A to 81 have not been moved. I therefore call Amendment No. 82, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Use of lights on motor-cycles
. The following section is inserted after section 16 of the 1972 Act—
"16A. It shall not be lawful for the driver of any two-wheeled motor-cycle of whatever engine capacity to ride the vehicle on the public highway unless the front headlamp and rear tail light are illuminated at all times; and if a driver rides a motorcycle in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.".").
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kimberley. In the 12 months ending last September, serious injuries to motor-cyclists had risen from 19,810 in the previous year to 21,600. Deaths rose from 1,167 to 1,200 in the same period.
As most of the accidents occur during the first two years of riding and as most of the motor cyclists are young people, it seems that something must be done at once to try to reduce these figures. As a keen motorist, I am very aware that motor-cyclists are far too often quite invisible, whether overtaking or oncoming. They usually drive fast, sometimes weaving in and out of dense traffic. This is not unlawful. As it is probable that they do not drive a car, they have no idea of the hazards that they create for themselves and for motorists.
I am aware that the ministry and connected organisations have tried to persuade motor-cyclists to wear light coloured clothing in an effort to make them visible on the road, but I do not believe that this would ever reduce the accident rate. Conspicuous clothing can mean anything from a coloured armband to a waistcoat, and is not enforceable. A light at the front and rear of a motor-cycle, whether dipped or fully on and on cycles of whatever cc capacity would, I am sure, lead to a reduction in the number of accidents.
Last weekend I travelled more than 300 miles on the motorways of this country and I took specific note of the motor-cycles that I saw on the road during that time. I saw a great number of motor-cycles, and was delighted to observe that all but three of the motorcyclists had switched on their headlamps. It means
360
that the use of lights is catching on, and if made a law it would also be enforceable. There may be a problem for the users of 125 cc motor-cycles but this can be easily overcome. No motorist wants to have an accident involving a motor-cycle because the motorcyclist is so unprotected, but until we make a law ensuring that motor-cyclists are seen accident figures will continue to rise. I beg to move.
Lord de Clifford: I entirely agree with this amendment. I think it is highly desirable that motor-cyclists should use their headlamps. I am not very much in favour of motor-cyclists because in traffic they do some extraordinary things which so far as I can see are masterpieces of knitting. The question I should like to put to the noble Baroness is this. What happens in respect of mopeds? Not all mopeds have a method of producing light when they are stationary. It would be practically impossible for this provision to be applied to all mopeds; for example, when they stop at traffic lights. Their lights would go out, and they would just have to treat their mopeds as if they were bicycles and push them. This matter should be looked at again with regard to mopeds, but apart from that I am entirely in favour of the proposal.
Viscount Cross: I also should like to support the amendment put by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, as I believe that it would make a very great contribution to road safety. I have just one qualification and that concerns the brightness of the lighting. I personally find that a very bright motor-cycle headlamp, whether on dipped beam or full beam, can be distracting when the motorbike is travelling towards one; so bright that one cannot see other traffic or a pedestrian crossing the road. If the headlamp is reflected in one's rear view mirror, again it is distracting. If the light was no more powerful than the sidelights which are illuminated on a Volvo when it is in motion, then I think it would be quite sufficient. One could see the motorbike coming and this would be of very good assistance.
The Earl of Denbigh and Desmond: May I, as one of the motor-cycling Members of your Lordships' House just say that there has been much controversy among the motor-cycling fraternity as to whether the compulsory use of headlights and tail-lights should be implemented or not. In certain areas I personally have used headlights, but I am in possession of a motorbike that is fitted with an electric starter, which has no means of manual starting. If one uses such a bike about town, a lot of stopping and starting together with the use of the headlight means that eventually the battery goes flat. Unless the law is changed with regard to the number of ampere hours charged in motor-cycle batteries one is going to find a lot of people pushing very heavy machines around town.
Also brought into debate is the question of whether it is the duty of the motor-cyclist to make himself seen? People emerging in their vehicles from intersections are one of the biggest causes of accidents involving motorcyclists and one is led to ask: Is it the duty of the motor-cyclist or of the other road user to make sure that the road is clear? I am of the opinion that the

361
present law is clear and that it is the duty of the other road user and not of the motor-cyclist. It is not the duty of the motor-cyclist to ride around looking like a Joseph's Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, making himself obvious to every policeman who wants to try to "do" him for travelling faster than 30 mph.
The law should make it the duty of people to make sure that they behave safely and not put all the duty on the motor-cyclist to announce his presence in any shape or form. On the other hand, a motor-cyclist should ride in a manner in which he can take avoiding action or slow down if someone emerges from an intersection—but that is all in the Highway Code, for one reason or another. An Act making it compulsory to use headlamps on a motor-cycle would create enormous difficulties for the motor-cycle industry, some of whose motorbikes are not necessarily required to be fitted with headlamps—such as cross country bikes which are occasionally used on the road and vintage motorcycles in particular.
Lord Bellwin: There is no doubt that motor-cycle conspicuity, or the lack of it, is a problem. I therefore welcome my noble friends' initiative in putting down an amendment which gives us an opportunity to discuss this important subject. Research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory suggested that some 78 per cent. of accidents involving motor-cycles also involved another road user, though it was unable to impart blame; 68 per cent. of those accidents occurred at junctions, roundabouts or private entrances. More than half of the other road users involved told the police afterwards that they had not seen the motor-cyclist, and this proportion remained the same when the other road user was also a motor-cyclist.
Further research has shown that, when other people's awareness of motor-cycles is improved, for example by the Department of Transport's "Think, Bike" publicity campaign, the number of multi-vehicle accidents involving motor-cycles at junctions falls significantly. But I do not believe motor-cyclists should rely solely on this sort of exhortatory measure for their own protection. They can and should do something on their own account to make themselves more conspicuous.
The question then arises: How can motor-cyclists best make themselves more conspicuous? Work in the United States has shown a reduction in the number of multi-vehicle accidents involving motor-cyclists at junctions in those states where the use of headlamps by motor-cyclists during the day is required. But work by the TRRL into the relative merits of different conspicuity aids has demonstrated that a pair of special daytime running lamps is significantly more effective even than a single powerful headlamp, and that the headlamp on a small motor-cycle or moped is of no value at all as a conspicuity aid.
The Government have, therefore, stated that they will shortly consult interested parties on draft regulations which will require all new machines to be fitted with a pair of these running lamps. I should just explain that these are neither sidelamps nor headlamps in the accepted sense, but somewhere between the two in terms of size. They will be mounted on the front in a pattern similar to that adopted for direction indi
362
cators, and emit a white diffused light. The Secretary of State does not intend to require motor-cyclists to use them, since it is clear that many would object very strongly to any form of compulsion in this matter. But the lamps would normally be wired to come on with the machine's ignition and it is hoped that most motor-cyclists will avail themselves of this very effective aid. The Secretary of State has in mind an operative date of 1st April 1983 which will allow manufacturers adequate time to improve the generating capacity of the smaller machines. It is not proposed to require the fitting or use of any additional light at the rear since there is no evidence to suggest that the daytime conspicuity of motor-cyclists from behind is a problem.
My main comment, therefore, is that the Government are tackling the problem but in a slightly different way which research has shown to achieve more effective results. What we are proposing to do does not require main legislation, which is why the proposal is not in the Bill. I should add that there are a number of other subsidiary reasons why we would be unhappy to accept the amendment. The most important of these is that it would effectively ban many of the smaller sizes of motor-cycle, as was mentioned by my noble friend a few moments ago, and, in addition, there would certainly be no great technical difficulty in developing machines with increased generating capacity—but what about those already on the road? They cannot be adapted and would be unable to comply. The amendment duplicates existing legislation, in as much as the use of headlamps and tail lights by motorcycles in conditions of poor daytime visibility and at night is already compulsory. It is also defective in not applying any penalty to the new offence inserted in the 1973 Act: this would require an amendment to Schedule 4. It also refers only to public highways, although the lighting requirements of the 1972 Act apply on any road to which the public has access, whether or not a highway.
These, however, are details. On the principle of the need to improve motor-cyclists' conspicuity we are entirely at one with my noble friend Lady Macleod. In the light of the assurances that I have given that we are tackling the problem in the way that I have described, which I hope she will feel is a very meaningful way—perhaps, if I may say so, even more than she had dared to hope—I hope she will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Certainly I have indicated that we are not only alert to the problem but that we are moving ahead to do something about it.
Lord Noel-Baker: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister a question before he sits down? I am not quite sure that I have understood everything that he has just said, but I would ask him whether, before Report stage, he will consider the proposal to make it obligatory on motor-cyclists to have a rear light. I believe rear lights are of the very greatest significance. Many years ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport I had to pass through the House of Commons a Bill making rear lights compulsory for pedal cyclists. I was most vigorously opposed by the National Cyclists' Union, who assured me that they would end my political career if I persisted in what I proposed. I persisted, the Bill was passed, the lights were made compulsory, my political

363
career did not end but I believe a great many pedal cyclists' lives were saved.
Lord Underhill: I was inclined to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, but having heard some of the criticisms made by experienced motor-cyclists I think it might be advisable for the Minister to be prepared to look at this again to see whether or not some adjustment could be made and perhaps he could table an amendment. When the Minister said they would look at this for new machines I was a little heartened, but then I was disheartened when he said there would be no compulsion. I do not want it to be thought that I am a member of the compulsion lobby; but for the Minister and his advisers to look at this matter, and then to say that we shall have these two lights on the machine but there will be no compulsion to use them, seems to be rather a nonsense.
My noble friend Lord Noel-Baker referred to the rear lights on pedal cycles. I was one of those who foolishly opposed rear lights. I mentioned this in a previous debate. That was in the 1930s and I took part in a demonstration of thousands of cyclists and we tried to develop a logical argument against the use of rear lights on cycles. When I look back I realise that it was madness and now I believe that people who oppose this will be mad as well—if I may use that word in this noble House. I should like the Minister to say that arguments have been put up, but that they will have a closer look at this matter, with both the motor-cycling and the manufacturing interests, but not merely with a view to having these extra lights on new machines while having no compulsion about it.
Viscount Simon: Before the noble Lord replies to that, I should like to add one other point. It seems to me that, in the further consultations which the noble Lord is going to have with the interests concerned, it is important to bear in mind, particularly if he is following the voluntary path, that one reaches a stage where a large number of motor-cyclists have these facilities and use them and the more there are the more dangerous are the few who do not. That is a point which should be borne in mind in these consultations.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I may cover the points before my noble friend Lady Macleod replies. First, may say to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, that I understand that regulations will be introduced to make rear brake lights compulsory on all machines. We have recently consulted on the draft regulations and that is in hand, so I hope he will be pleased about that. With regard to the element of compulsion, perhaps I may state clearly what is intended. New machines will in fact compulsorily be fitted with the new kind of lamps I have mentioned and they will be wired into the ignition. It will be possible, if someone wants to go to the physical trouble that is involved, to disconnect them. At the present time the intention is that that is something they should be able to do. As I say that, I must admit that I cannot quite follow why that is the intention and I should want to take it away and discuss it further because as I stand here I could not give an explanation for the reason for that. I shall want to
364
look at that point again, which I hope will make my noble friend happier than she seemed to be after the earlier reply which I gave.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am most grateful to my noble friend for all that he has said and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and to the noble Lord opposite. It was my uncle, a former Lord Hampton, who introduced into this House the compulsory wearing of helmets for motor-cyclists many years ago. He felt that by that he had saved the lives of many young people who were riding motor-cycles. One hundred and fifty thousand new motor-cyclists are coming on to the road every year. Those motor-cyclists are young people and the only reason why I introduced this amendment was to try to save some of their lives.
My noble friend has told us that in future the new motor-cycles will have lights on them. So long as they are seen by the motorists, that is the main point, because we cannot see the motor-cyclist coming up behind us. In view of what my noble friend has said, and also in view of the fact that he has said he will consult with the Minister and come back to us again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Children to wear seat belts]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone had given notice to move Amendment No. 83:
Page 21, line 5, at end insert—
"(3) This section will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint after he has satisfied himself that seat belts of improved design to suit variable types of user are available for general use.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the amendment to be moved by my noble friend the Minister, No. 83A, which I think covers my amendment, I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 83A:
Leave out Clause 27 and insert the following new clause:
("Restrictions on carrying children in the front of motor vehicles
27.—(1) After section 33 of the 1972 Act there is inserted the following section—
33A.—(1) Except as provided by regulations a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, drive a motor vehicle on a road when there is in the front of the vehicle—

(a) a child under the age of fourteen years who is not wearing a scat belt in conformity with regulations; or

(b) any child under the age of one year.

(2) It is an offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of subsection (1) above.
(3) Provision may be made by regulations—

(a) excepting from the prohibition in subsection (1 above the driving of vehicles of a prescribed class or the driving of vehicles in such circumstances as) may be prescribed;

(b) defining in relation to any class of vehicle what part of the vehicle is to be regarded as the front of the vehicle for the purposes of that subsection;

365

(c) prescribing for the purposes of that subsection the descriptions of seat belt to be worn by children and the manner in which such a belt is to be fixed and used.

(4) In this section—
"regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section; and
"seat belt" includes any special chair to which the belt is attached.".
(2) In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry relating to section 33 there is inserted—

"33A.

Driving motor vehicle with child in the front not wearing seat belt or under the age of one year.

Summarily.

£50

—

—

Sections 181 and 183 apply".")

The noble Lord said: The addition of this clause to the Bill was welcomed by the Government as a significant step forward to reduce the risks for children travelling in cars. However, as I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, there are a number of defects in the wording of the existing drafting, which is why the Government have tabled this new clause.
Of course, no two draftsmen will produce the same clause describing the same provisions, but essentially the Government's new clause makes only two changes. We feel it would be more appropriate for the clause to apply to children below 14, rather than 13, as this is the age they become legally responsible for their own actions. We have also ensured that there are adequate regulation-making powers, so that various types of restraint can be used, and that problems like two-seater cars or cars which are not required to fit seat belts are adequately covered.
This brings me on to the matter which I know some noble Lords and Members in another place were concerned about. During Second Reading we discussed the findings of research done by the British Standards Institution for the Sunday Times. I explained that the Secretary of State would study this work and report back on his findings. He has now done so, and I think I can do no better in trying to be helpful to the Committee than repeat that statement.
In response to a Parliamentary Question from fain Mills, MP, on Friday, 5th June, the Secretary of State replied:—
"I am grateful to the Sunday Times for making the results of their tests available to me, and for the concern they have shown to add to the factual evidence available to us on the very important issue of children's safety in cars. Having examined the test results very carefully, I have concluded that they do not in any way invalidate the advice of the Child Accident Prevention Committee that even small children are better protected in accidents if they are restrained, even by belts which are not specially designed for them. But the tests do underline the better protection afforded by properly designed child restraints.
"The tests carried out for the Sunday Times used two childsize dummies, one representing a three year-old child, the other a ten year-old. In films of some of the tests, the dummies were shown to be thrown against or to slip under the adult seat belt in ways which would apparently have caused chest, stomach or neck injuries to a real child. If such results were repeated in real life, parents would naturally have serious reservations about using adult belts for children of this age.
"There are two reasons why such results may not be representative of real accidents. First, the dummies used in the tests were designed not to be entirely representative of the average child, but to exaggerate the roundness of the pelvis, which makes a
366
child most likely to slip under a belt. This is done to ensure that specially designed child restraints are as proof against this tendency to slip as manufacturers can make them. In fact in tests of adult seat belts using adult dummies it is not uncommon for the dummy to slip under the seat belt, and yet that seldom happens in real accidents. Similarly, the apparent neck injuries to the dummies would be significant—in the absence of accident data—only if the dummies had been specially designed to model the performance and physical structure of a real child's neck at the relevant age, which they were not.
"Second, the accident evidence which relates to children under eleven wearing adult seat belts although admittedly limited does not support the suggestion that risk of injury from the belt itself outweighs any protection it may offer. In a Swedish study which looked specifically at this problem of a total number of 252 small stature adults none of those wearing seat belts suffered more than very minor injuries such as a friction burn on the neck from the webbing. Out of 76 children over 6 wearing adult seat belts in the front passenger seat only 13 per cent., were injured. And the rate of injury was the same for children between 6 and 11 as for those over 11. Australian work supports the view that a correctly adjusted three-point belt seems to offer good protection even to very young children.
"This was the accident evidence which convinced the Child Accident Prevention Committee that a child was less at risk when restrained by any approved form of restraint, including an adult seat belt, than when travelling unrestrained. I see no reason to dissent from that conclusion. However, it is clear from both the accident evidence and the Sunday Times tests that the better a restraint is adapted to the size of the child, the better the protection offered.
"My conclusion is that an adult seat belt gives a significant measure of protection to young children and that it would not be right to ban them from the front seats of cars so long as they are at least so protected. This is especially so as in many cars there is no form of restraint at all in the back.
"The ideal is, of course, the use of a restraint appropriate to the characteristics of each particular child; that cannot be achieved by legislation, but I shall be issuing guidance to parents on the types of restraint which appear to offer the best protection to children of various ages and sizes".
I have gone to some length to quote that statement in detail because it is a matter of concern, and I think it proper that I should explain, as did my right honourable friend, exactly why he has taken the stance that he has. I hope this does indicate, and your Lordships will be reassured, that the Government are satisfied that these proposals will ensure that the risks to children travelling in cars are reduced. I hope your Lordships will accept the proposed amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is an amendment to this amendment, No. 83B, which we will now take before we return to the main amendment.
6.38 p.m.
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 83B as an amendment to Amendment 83A:
Line 10, at end insert )"; unless that child is either—

(i) restrained in an approved safety seat attached in an approved manner; or

(ii) restrained in an approved cot or similar bed attached in an approved manner.").

The noble Lady said: I have put down this amendment because I, as a mother, have had some experience of driving babies in a motor car when I was alone with them. I know that when the baby is in the back I am unable to concentrate fully on driving because I am worried as to whether the baby, which I cannot see unless I turn round, is all right. If I can have the creature in the front beside me I can glance at it frequently, without taking my eyes off the road for longer than it

367
takes to glance at my driving mirror or speedometer, so my mind is at rest and my mind is, therefore, on the road.
In addition to this, research done in America and reported on by the Child Accident Prevention Committee has revealed that the second safest place for children, after restrained in the back, is restrained in the front. Unrestrained in the back, which this clause would appear to advocate, comes third on the list. Therefore, I suggest on two counts this amendment would contribute to the safety of babies in cars. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I have great sympathy with the amendment just moved. I also have great sympathy with the amendment that would have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Before the Minister replies, there are one or two points I should like to make on the new clause which the Minister moved, which I think is a great improvement on the original clause, and I fully support the principle behind the new clause 27.
The three points mentioned in subsection (3), which are going to be dealt with by regulations, I feel sure will give full opportunity—and I hope the department will take it—for the fullest consultation with all bodies concerned, the motoring organisations, the accident prevention bodies, and, as I said on the main seat belt proposal, also the manufacturers of equipment. At second Reading I urged that before the Secretary of State introduces an order under this clause there should be meaningful consultations with manufacturers regarding the supply of suitable restraints for children of various stages, including when riding in back seats. I mention that because I believe it is essential that we should give consideration to that matter.
The question of suitable restraints for children when riding in rear seats is very important. There is a great deal of pressure for saying that children should be debarred from riding in front seats at all. A number of continental countries have that provision. For the very reasons which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has mentioned, I believe that that could be a dangerous course to follow. All children do not behave themselves well when left on their own on the back seat. Those of us who are parents know that that is the case. Children unattended on a back seat and not wearing any restraint could be a very serious distraction to a driver, particularly when the driver is the only adult in the car.
Therefore, I hope that it will be kept in mind that, should there be any person who prefers not to have a child on the front seat properly belted—as would be required by the new clause—to have children in the back seat unattended and unrestrained could be as equally bad a danger as having them in the front seat. Therefore, I believe that there should be adequate child restraints for all ages, properly approved, suitable both for front and rear seats and, what is even more important, manufactured and sold at a price which will encourage people to use them. not only as they will have to do compulsorily on the front seat, but voluntarily on the rear seat, if they wish to have children there.
Lord Mottistone: I think that this is the moment for
368
me to make a few remarks. I am very much in favour of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun's amendment. I think that it is an admirably sensible addition. Taking up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just made, I can tell your Lordships that, interestingly enough, last Friday I found myself in traffic in London behind a car with three children in it aged between seven and 10 years in a line on the back seat, and with a lady driver in front without anybody alongside her. For about 10 minutes or so, it was fine. She was driving along and paying a great deal of attention. Then one of the children must have said something, because from that moment on she became a positive danger. She was always looking over her shoulder to one child or the other. She did not start when the traffic started and I became so fascinated that I nearly ran into her, and that would have been a disaster.
It is very important that we get the balance right. If that lady had had a child beside her strapped in, it is just possible that she could have chosen the child that she could have slapped, and have stopped whatever was going on. I mention that, because as I understand it, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is seeking to put a child in the front if it is suitably strapped in and I would entirely agree with that.
The other point that I should like to cover—and it is quicker to do it this way—is that I welcome very much the Minister's amendment and particularly Section 33A(3)(c). However, I noted in his speech—and I am talking on this matter now while the matter is fresh in my mind—that when he read out the statement of his right honourable friend in another place, he concentrated on the safety of the children and never once in his statement did he talk about the comfort of the children. We all know that even adults when travelling long distances, particularly if the seat belt fittings do not quite suit them, can find it very uncomfortable. I suggest that it would be quite intolerable on long journeys for children between the ages of one and 13—which is the age range that we are talking about—to have to stay strapped in unless they have a seat belt that really suits them and which is very comfortable. Therefore, perhaps I could suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he incorporates within the safety aspect, which is the overriding need, the requirement for comfort in the design of alternative fittings.
I should like to draw to my noble friend's attention —I shall not read it out, although I might have done so if the Minister had not adopted my amendment—a most interesting letter in The Times of 28th May, from a Mr. Harry Simmonds, who makes the point which my amendment sought to do, and which the Minister's new equivalent paragraph does in providing regulations to control the type of fittings. It is well worth reading that letter. Interestingly, I do not know Mr. Fowler, and the letter was written after I had put down my amendment, so it shows that there are some great minds that think alike.
Lord Drumalbyn: I should like to ask two questions. Now that we have passed Amendment No. 79, am I right in thinking that it will still be necessary for children in the back seat to wear straps; in other

369
words, this is in addition to the amendment that we are now discussing?
Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the words:
"Except as provided by regulations a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, drive a motor vehicle on a road when there is in the front of the vehicle…"
Those words are not in Amendment No. 79, the amendment that we have passed. I ask my noble friend and also my noble friend Lord Nugent, whether it would not be much better to include those words in subsection (3) of the main amendment that we have passed, which says:
"Any person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section"—
and then insert:
"without reasonable excuse shall be guilty of an offence".
I am sure that that would make the amendment very much more acceptable.
Lord Auckland: I do not wish to revert back to Amendment No. 79, because that was very widely discussed. However, as an honorary vice-president of RoSPA, I strongly support the amendment which my noble friend has made to the Bill. I should like to ask my noble friend—and this really relates to my noble friend Lord Mottistone's amendment—how quickly will we get a design of seat belt, particularly for children, which comes within the proper Government regulations? Will the Road Research Laboratory, or whatever organisation it is which deals with this matter, consult with the seat belt manufacturers? It is very important, having passed Amendment No. 79, that we get as soon as possible and especially for children, particularly in the front seat of cars, seat belts which really are safe and which, as my noble friend rightly said, are also comfortable.
Lord Noel-Baker: I should like to know whether before the Report stage, we can consider again the suggestion which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to make, that there should be compulsory provision of seat belts for children in the back seat. If I recall rightly—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—on Second Reading he said something to the effect that it would be a desirable arrangement to have scat belts for children on the back seat, but that it would be too expensive. I submit that expense is not a consideration that should be taken into account in such a matter. If children sustain injury in the back seat, as they sometimes do, it may result in brain damage, in facial disfigurement or in being crippled for life. That is a handicap to the child and perhaps a burden to the public purse which could be avoided if the right seat belts were found for children for the rear seat. I ask the Minister to consider that matter again.
6.50 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: I must agree with the principle of both these amendments. We may return to the subject of enforcement. I may be wrong, but I think that these amendments have been drafted with urban areas and with those who travel long distances in mind. My mind goes to the lady who collects children
370
to take them to school. She starts at the bottom of a hill in a small village and sweeps up the road, probably ending up with seven quite well behaved children, because the children know what will happen to them if they are not well behaved. I am also thinking of vehicles, such as Land Rovers, during harvest time when children ride in both the front and the back. They can be well behaved or not, but that entirely depends on the farmer in question. My noble friend Lord Bellwin and his advisers can probably find an excellent solution to this, but this is a matter that niggles me slightly.
Viscount Cross: I have every sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, but I understand that children restrained in the back of a car are safer than those restrained in the front. On the point which I think that my noble friend Lord Mottistone was about to make concerning anchorage points, under the construction and use regulations will my noble friend the Minister ask the Secretary of State to ask the manufacturers to provide the necessary four anchorage points on the floor in the back of the shooting-brake type of car, hatchback, or station wagon, whatever you like to call it?—because they are necessary in order that children may be safely restrained on the rear seat by seat belts manufactured for that type of car.
Lord Bellwin: First, I should like to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and say that we are very sympathetic to it. I recall her raising the matter on Second Reading. Since then we have talked about it and I am pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the Government do not object to the principle behind this amendment. Some suitable devices for carrying babies on the front seat of cars are on the market and I understand that one such device—it may, indeed, be the one which the noble Lady has in mind—is affectionately called a "love seat" The mind boggles. If the Committee has no objection to the use of such restraining devices for the front seats of cars, then the Government will correct any drafting errors that there may be in this amendment and bring it back on Report. I am grateful to the noble Lady and I hope that she will be gratified by my response. I shall try, if I can, to cover the many points made by your Lordships as follows.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If my noble friend will forgive me for intervening, I wanted to speak about the main amendment but I expected to do this when we came to debate the Government amendment, after we had debated the noble Lady's amendment, which is the usual course. Can my noble friend adopt that more usual practice? We could deal with the noble Lady's amendment and then return to the substantive amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We are following the usual procedure.
Lord Bellwin: I am not sure whether I am in or out of order, but I was trying to say that in these two amendments together I wanted to make the response

371
which I did to the noble Lady. On the other hand, my noble friend is probably right that if we were to proceed by my answering all the points, most of which were made on the previous amendment, my noble friend would miss his opportunity.
I was about to answer a number of the points that have been made, some of which are covered in both amendments. If I may, I shall answer the points that have been made and then it will be up to my noble friend, if he wishes—we are in Committee—to come back and comment and I will try to respond to him. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about consultation and gladly assure him that it is the wish that there should be as much consultation as possible. That is what we intend to do. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for the way in which he has dealt with this particular issue, both within and outside the Committee. As always, he is most helpful in these matters.
I listened to his point about the comfort of children with some interest, but I am not sure what might be done to help. I should have thought that it was up to the individual parents to try to ensure that they had restraints which were most appropriate for the individual child, so as to maximise the comfort. One could quickly think of a situation where a child of 10 or just under 11 years of age might be more comfortable with one kind of device than would be a child of, say, two or three years of age, who would need a different type.
Obviously, this whole new area of devices of this kind will come into much greater focus if, in another place, a decision, following that taken today, moves for compulsion generally. This leads me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn—and I am sorry if these answers seem to be blending into each other, but they do in any case. At present it is not compulsory for children sitting on back seats to wear seat belts. One can think of a number of reasons why that might be very difficult to enforce: not least the reason that my noble friend Lord de Clifford mentioned. I thought that the instance that he gave of picking up a number of children was very practical. My goodness! how would one ensure that they were all properly strapped in? This is a problem. Nevertheless, the whole matter is being brought out into the open again and it is none the worse for that. Therefore, quite clearly, I cannot give undertakings. I say again, who knows what will flow from this decision? We shall have to watch it very carefully indeed.
Lord Drumalbyn: My point can be summed up by the question: For the purposes of the new Clause 33A, is a child a person? If so, it would certainly appear that Clause 33A requires children to be strapped in when a car is being driven. It says:
"persons who are driving or riding in motor vehicles…".
Presumably the person driving the car would be responsible for the children under 14 years of age being strapped in. In the light of the amendment that has been made, it seems to me that this point needs further consideration.
Lord Bellwin: That point is fair enough. I am just wondering, arising from what transpired earlier. What
372
other matters may now require to be considered. As I stand here at this moment in time I do not know. I would only repeat that the matter will now come under the closest scrutiny and we shall have to wait and see. It may be that if there is anything to be done in the short-term, we shall come back with it on Report; otherwise, hopefully, at that stage we shall be able to give more detailed replies than I am able to give now on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked how quickly a seat belt could be designed especially for children. He asked whether researchers would consult with seat belt manufacturers. I am sure that, following the decision today, seat belt manufacturers will be happy to look at this whole matter. It has many implications for them. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, was anxious that there should be compulsory provision for children in back seats. Part of the answer to him was the difficulties raised by my noble friend Lord de Clifford. Clearly this whole matter—I say hopefully for the last time today—will require much further thought now.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Cross on the point about the universal anchorage points appropriate for all child restraint systems, that I am informed that that is not possible because they vary considerably. I am told that the new EEC requirements for using the lower adult anchorage points hopefully will cover this. It may be helpful for him if I say that the construction and use regulations already cover child restraint systems. Child restraint systems have to meet a British standard or the EEC requirement. Rear child restraint systems usually require anchorage points separate from the ones for adult belts, and only the latter will be compulsory in new cars from 1982. The cost of installing the rear child restraints can therefore be expensive and perhaps not easy to install. While I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, made when he said that cost really should not come into this whole matter, I think it is not just cost, it is the practicalities as well. I sit down after making the point that I feel that this is one issue which has been thrown into the melting pot for a lot more consideration than it may have had hitherto.
Lady Saltoun: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for what he has said. In the circumstances I should like to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It would be discourteous if I did not speak. In fact it was in the closing remarks of my noble friend that he answered what was really underlying the questions I was going to put. I take it from what he said that the euphoria of this afternoon's decisions will not cloud the department's views as to what is now desirable. A great number of points were raised this afternoon; a number of other points have been raised on this new Government clause.
It is essential that we get it right, or get it as near right as we can. It would be wrong if I did not tell my noble friend that I have, with colleagues on both sides of the House, a number of amendments down for

373
Report stage with regard to the seat belt question. I believe that a number of the views that are going to be put then, a number of the decisions that might be made, have some bearing on Clause 27. That is really what I want to say. We cannot go charging off on implementing Clause 27 just as it stands. It seemed inappropriate to set down a lot of amendments to Clause 27 which in itself was another amendment. So we might have to come back to that at Report stage.
While the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, says that cost must not be too important an element, I take the point of view that I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, does. Any device, any restraint system that may be devised and approved has to be within the purchasing power of Mr. Average, or we are going to have trouble with enforcement, and we are going to build up an "anti" feeling about this whole question which we have been talking about all afternoon. I urge my noble friend to ensure that, when the department make known their precise and detailed requirements to meet the noble Lady's requirement of a suitable and approved restraint system in the front seat for the under ones and other children, he bears this very much in mind. I think he said earlier that he would bear all these things in mind. That is what I wanted to say à propos this amendment. I am sorry if I have it in the wrong order, but my noble friend will appreciate that we have got a little confused in taking two or three things together. It seemed to me the right way to get back on normal course.
Lord Bellwin: I do not think my noble friend has got it in the wrong order. I myself was concerned that I might be getting it in the wrong order, but I hope I did not in the end. I will take careful note of what my noble friend says. I am also well aware that earlier in the day, before we had the major debate on the first issue, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and others helpfully withdrew their amendments but reserved their right—well, they had the right anyway, but they said they would come back at Report stage if they wished. I presume the same applies to the points made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. When other proposals come forward we shall expect to discuss them properly in the usual way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Denington Baroness Denington moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Regulations for the immobilisation of vehicles
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the immobilisation of vehicles in circumstances where there is reason to believe that they are being or have been permitted to remain at rest on a road in contravention of any statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement respecting the waiting of vehicles:
Provided that this section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify and he may by order exclude the application of this section to any offence.
(2) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations and orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) The exercise by any authority or authorised person of the powers under this section in accordance with the regulations shall not render the authority or person subject to any liability in respect of the loss of or damage to any vehicle immobilised,
374
or to the contents or fittings of any such vehicle or in respect of any other loss or damage sustained by the person responsible for the vehicle.
(4) Regulations under this section may make provision generally as to the use of immobilising devices or equipment and the conditions under which they may be so used, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, may make provision with respect to any of the following matters—

(a) the type and nature of the device used and the conditions under which it may be used;

(b) the persons authorised to fit and remove such devices;

(c) for requiring a notice, informing any person responsible that the device has been fitted, to be attached to the vehicle;

(d) for prohibiting the fitting or removal of the device or notice by unauthorised persons;

(e) the removal and disposal of the vehicle if not claimed;

(f) the appropriate charges in respect of the immobilisation of the vehicle which may be recovered from any person responsible;

and may make different provision for different classes of vehicles.
(5) Regulations or orders of the Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by subsequent regulations or orders of the Secretary of State.
(6) Any reference in this section to a vehicle which has been permitted to remain at rest includes a reference to avehicle which has been permitted to remain at rest before the coming into force of the provisions contained in this section.
(7) If and so long as the use of a device to immobilise a vehicle permitted to remain at rest on a road is in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State, then the device and the vehicle immobilised shall be treated as not constituting an obstruction to the highway.
(8) In this section, "statutory" means contained in, or having effect under, any enactment.").
The noble Baroness said: We have in this country a system of parking controls and regulations that have been instituted to enable the police to see that our traffic can flow—a difficult problem in urban areas with old road patterns and enormous numbers of vehicles. It is felt that the proposal embodied in this amendment, which is really to cover the action of the police and to help them in their task of immobilising vehicles, would help to deal with the problems that I hope to demonstrate to your Lordships.
The economic cost of traffic delays to industry is very considerable. This is a factor that encourages me to move this amendment. It is one of the factors that have made it attractive for industry to move out to new locations in the new towns and elsewhere, and importantly it inhibits industry from opening up in the decaying inner city areas. Everybody on all sides of this Committee and elsewhere is concerned with this particular problem. This amendment has in its small way a bearing on the importance of our economic performance for renewal of our inner city areas.
I should like to give your Lordships some facts. To control the inner London parking area the police said in evidence to, I think, the House of Commons Transport Committee that they nedeed 4,000 wardens for an acceptable level of enforcement. The highest level of wardens, and therefore of enforcement, that they ever had was in 1973 when they had 2,100 wardens. Then we came to 1977–78 when public expenditure cuts were imposed and a ceiling of 1,500 wardens was required to meet the needs of the whole of the inner London parking area. Since then the top level was been raised to the point where they are 1,200 short on the desirable number of 4,000. But, actually, the

375
number of wardens in post has risen from 1,100 to 1,200, and therefore overall we are really 2,800 short on the number we should have to try to keep London's traffic moving. That is the crux of this whole issue because it must be kept moving in the national interest.
A considerable number of the worst parking offenders also offend in other respects. The information I am giving I have received from the police. These offenders are difficult to trace and identify. They are the people who do not inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea that they have a car—the obligation is on the owner to inform Swansea—so there is no record of the owner of the vehicle. Or sometimes they give a false name and address, so that when the police or wardens, through their system, contact Swansea to try to trace the owner, they cannot trace them because they are non-existent or bogus. The same sort of people—they all come under the same category of the type of people who make the amendment necessary—have no current licence; one can use the expression "cowboys" to describe them, and they are the people we are after. We do not have enough police and warden manpower to have somebody standing by a vehicle day and night until somebody turns up to drive it away; that would be an extremely extravagant action to attempt to take.
I am told that about 1½ million fixed penalty notices are issued each year in the Metropolitan Police district. About 800,000, or only 53 per cent., actually pay, and of the remaining 700,000, 500,000 turn out to be unenforceable; they are foreign and diplomatic cars and so on or vehicles whose owners are unknown or cannot be traced. Of the 200,000 who have not paid but are enforceable —we come to another extraordinary factor—the courts can handle only 50,000 a year; apparently no more can be got through the legal processes and it appears that after six months, if a case has not been heard, it falls and the person escapes any possible fine. Thus, 150,000 people escape scot free. Indeed, I am wondering whether anybody will ever pay their fines again when, or if, my remarks are published in the press because the chances of getting away scot free appear to be exceedingly high.
I have been speaking so far about illegal parkers who escape any penalty. A check was made by the police in the West End, in Mayfair and Soho, and out of 2,746 vehicles illegally parked, over 2,011 already had fixed penalty notices on the files unpaid. Of those, 77 diplomatic vehicles actually had 428 on file unpaid and one person had 53 outstanding. I am, therefore, talking about people who go on and on offending and take no notice of the regulations, the law or anything of that sort. The highest number for a non-diplomatic car for one vehicle was 40. Another survey was conducted in Kensington and Chelsea and it threw up comparable figures; the highest number there for an ordinary civilian offender was 40 unpaid outstanding tickets. Quite a few people had between 30 and 40. Clearly, therefore, there is a number—it depends whether one calls it an exceedingly high number or not; it is not such an exceedingly high number of very naughty people, but certainly a lot of people do not pay at all—people who should not be allowed to get away and flout the law and continue with what can only be described as completely anti-social behaviour.
That is only part of the picture. I am sorry to delay the Committee, but I feel that I must give your Lordships the picture as it has come to me. That relates to those who get a ticket. It is estimated that because of the shortage of wardens, four out of every five vehicles illegally parked in Central London are not ticketed. The total number of illegally parked vehicles may well exceed 7 million. Thus, only just over 10 per cent. of illegal parkers suffer the consequence of their action.
I come to the question of possible remedies. Increasing wardens' strength certainly would improve the situation, but let us be realists and accept that money is tight. I do not think it is possible to calculate on the likelihood that the police will get their 4,000 wardens in the foreseeable future. Certainly the police have the power to tow away vehicles, and they tell me they remove about 300 a week. It takes on average three-quarters of an hour by our police force, who are not lowly paid, to carry out the operation; as I say, using expensive manpower. They deal mainly, if not almost entirely, with the dangerously parked vehicle, because that simply must be removed, but not with the offender who persistently parks illegally and inhibits the flow of London's traffic or slows it down, and we are all aware how a single car can jam up a whole street.
Whether we have any hope of seeing the throughput of court cases speeded up I have no knowledge, nor how long it would take before any new procedures in that direction could operate. But, even if such matters were improved, it would not deal with the deliberate evader; the person who, as I have explained, cannot be traced. I submit there is a serious problem here and that we should try to do something about it. If we cannot solve it entirely, at least let us do something about it.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to permit the police to take new action to deal with the problem by allowing them to fix clamps to immobilise offending vehicles and so enable the offenders to be identified—because they would not be able to remove their vehicles without being found; they would have to turn up in due course By drastically reducing the likelihood of getting away with it, it is felt that it would reduce the actual incidence of illegal parking, and that is greatly to be desired.
The Metropolitan Police have investigated various devices that could be used and the only one they find acceptable is the clamp called the Denver shoe. It does not damage the vehicle and it is no danger to children playing near the car. I have been told that the Dover local authority—apparently have had problems there—thought about a device called a spiked collar, but apparently that is dangerous to children and something the police would not consider at all. So it is the Denver shoe we are talking about and I might mentioned that it is used in America and on the Continent, and I have not heard that it has caused any great trouble or resulted in uproar anywhere.
I believe that there is raised the query that a driver might return to his car, try to move it and damage it, not knowing that there is a clamp on the wheel. I have spoken to the police about this point and they say that they are aware of it. It is essential to see that the person whose car it is does not get in and try to move it. The police have already carried out con

377
siderable research. The police would put a sticker on the windscreen so that the driver, on getting into the car, could not possibly drive it away simply because he could not see out. Research has been carried out into special adhesives with which to stick on the sticker and ensure that it is rainproof and vandal proof. But obviously the police would have the secret of how to remove the sticker; they would not leave it to the driver to have to struggle with that problem.
The procedure would be that the vehicle would be identified by a warden and the immobilisation team would be called out. The team would lock a clamp on to a wheel and the notice on the windscreen would inform the driver that it was locked on his car. It would state where he had to go. He would meet the police and no doubt have a very nice little conversation with them. They would satisfy themselves about him and get all the information that they wanted. Then, on the walkie-talkie, they would instruct the warden, or whoever it was, to unlock the vehicle. The driver would return to the vehicle and would be free to drive it away, having, one hopes, learnt his lesson.
That really is it. It is quite simple. It is meant to catch the anti-social and the persistent offenders, those who have a number of fixed penalty notices for parking offences and who ignore them and flout the law. This point can be checked by the wardens who have a personal radio. They can check with Swansea to ensure that they are catching only the real offenders. There is no intention to proceed in this way against every car that is parked where it ought not to be parked. I suspect that occasionally we are all offenders in that we park our car where we should not park it, rush off to do something, and return holding our breath. The police or the local authorities are not after that kind of person, but rather the persistent offender who has a very bad record.
I understand that I am supported by the AMA and I have received a letter from the ADC. The council at Dover is worried about problems there with foreign vehicles and it believes that this proposal would be helpful. Even the Freight Transport Association wrote to me stating that it hoped that its vehicles would not be touched, but it thought that this was quite a good idea.
Among the bodies from whom I have heard, apparently it is only the AA that is horrified about the proposal. It says that it is a draconian measure, but I think that is rubbish. It says that the problem has arisen only in Greater London, which is not true. It also states that it results from the failure to make adequate provision for the car. If by that the AA means building new roads or carrying out road widening, with all that that involves, then I consider it a silly observation. The association also states that the problem arises from the failure to provide sufficient funding for a proper level of enforcement. Well, it does in part, but we all know the situation that the country is in at present. It states that the provision is defective in that no responsibility whatsoever will be borne by any authority for any liability in respect of damage or loss to any vehicle, its fittings, or its contents, arising from the use of the clamp. I cannot imagine what damage a clamp would do to the contents of a car.
As I have tried to explain to the Committee, the
378
police are very conscious about the possibility of damage and they feel certain that they can deal with this particular problem. I hope that the Committee will realise that there is a problem here and that the amendment is a way in which to try to deal with these very naughty people—I do not know what other word to use to describe them. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for whom I have very great admiration, will be sympathetic towards the amendment and to what it is trying to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope that the Committee and my noble friend will reject the amendment. There are two real reasons for suggesting that it is quite inappropriate. First, there have been no consultations whatsoever with the users of motor vehicles—through the RAC, the AA—so far as any Government intention to alter the law is concerned. With regard to the locking up of a motor vehicle by way of a device, not for a minute do I believe that it would work. We have been dealing with parking problems for years and years. In 1956, during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, my noble forebear had exactly the same problem, and we have not advanced so far as to resort to the locking up of people's property in this way.
As the noble Baroness said, the economic cost of an obstruction is great, but it would be that much greater if motor vehicles were to be locked up and remain in situ until someone can be found to unlock them, whether physically or in any other way. I can foresee much difficulty involving the users of the motor vehicle, the police and/or other authorities. The noble Baroness seemed to suggest in her preliminary remarks that traffic wardens should be given even more powers, but I fear that we cannot wear that one. Yes, I agree that we have a parking problem and an obstruction problem, but this is no way in which to deal with it, and I urge my noble friend to reject the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I wish to echo what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has said. We have been unbelted and now we are being clammed up. In fact the noble Baroness put the case against her own amendment at the very beginning of her remarks. The amendment is concerned with regulations for the immobilisation of vehicles, and yet she has been talking about traffic flow. What would happen if a vehicle was immobilised in the rush hour? If a car breaks down it can be taken out of the way, but if a clamp is applied to the wheel of a car parked in the wrong place in the rush hour the car might remain there for a very long time and traffic problems would be greater than ever.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I understand that the idea behind the noble Baroness's proposal is, among other things, to secure the more effective enforcement of traffic regulations, and I understand that the Metropolitan Police are very keen that the law should be amended so as to permit the use of immobilisation devices to be tested, and I understand, too, that the Planning and Communications Policy Committee of the previous administration at County Hall supported the proposal.

379
Naturally, the Government wish to secure the most effective practical enforcement of traffic regulations. That is why in November 1979 my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport set up an interdepartmental working party to review certain aspects of the law on road traffic. The objectives were to devise means of relieving the courts and the police of some of the burdens imposed by road traffic offences, and to achieve a better system for the administration of justice in this field.
The working party, the report of which was published for consultation on 20th May, paid close attention to the problems of enforcement and made a number of recommendations which are intended to assist in the improvement of the enforcement of parking regulations. The Government have already accepted a number of the working party's recommendations and have it in mind to accept others, subject to the views expressed as a result of the consultation on the report. So I think it is clear that the Government are concerned about the very real problems caused by illegal parking (to which the noble Baroness made reference) which is of course the problem which this proposal to use immobilisation devices is intended to tackle.
I suggest that we need to consider the pros and cons of immobilisation devices very carefully before making up our minds on what would be an innovation so far as this country is concerned. First of all, in what circumstances would such devices be used? I think that it is clear and is accepted by both the Metropolitan Police and the GLC that immobilisation devices could not be used in situations such as the kind that my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux just mentioned, where cars were parked in such a way as to cause danger to other traffic or to pedestrians, or where they were causing serious obstruction. To use clamps to prevent the offending vehicle being moved in such circumstances would obviously be counter-productive. Vehicle removal would continue to be the appropriate response. I am sure the noble Baroness would agree with that.
So we need to consider the value of using immobilisation in other cases of illegal parking. The operational simplicity of clamps would allow them to be used more widely than towing away, and I understand that the Metropolitan Police believe that this would be a valuable and much-needed deterrent to illegal parking. Immobilisation would also provide a direct means of dealing with parking offences by some foreign visitors, on whom the fixed penalty system has little impact. But, of course, there is a frequent turn-round in foreign visitors, so the impact of the lesson will be reduced.
I have much before me here which goes on in a similar vein, but I think it would sum up best if I were to say that the Government are considering this whole question—the one which the working party on road traffic laws did not consider as part of its examination of the whole subject of enforcement of traffic regulations. We believe, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, would agree with me on this, that a decision should not be taken on immobilisation in isolation without deeper consideration of all the issues that are involved. If I were to assure her that the Government, in considering this matter, will take very careful note of what has been said today, she may feel able, perhaps,
380
not to press the amendment at this time.
Baroness Denington: I thank noble Lords for what they have said. I naturally do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He knows there is a problem, and he is a bit negative about it. I think he is in a position to help us all, and ought to help us all, to be a little more positive, because he must recognise that there are some (I use the word again) very naughty people who ought really to be made to recognise the law and to be socially behaved. He nods, and I thank him for doing so. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his approach. Yes, I will withdraw this amendment—of course I will—if I feel that it has given this matter an airing and perhaps given us a little impetus to think along lines of, yes, a package deal, but something that must be done, because I think the situation is not a good one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I suggest that this might be an appropriate moment for the Committee to adjourn for dinner until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.33 until 8 p.m.].
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 84ZA:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
"Persons entitled to drive when licence applied for.
.—(1) After section 84(4) of the 1972 Act (under which a person may drive a vehicle without a licence if he has previously held a licence to drive vehicles of that class and has applied for and is entitled to obtain such a licence) there is inserted—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (4) above shall also apply (where the requirements of that subsection are otherwise met) in the case of a person who has not previously held a licence to drive vehicles of the relevant class.
Regulations under this subsection shall, if not previously revoked, expire at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which they came into operation.".
(2) In the words in parenthesis in section 199(2) of that Act (exceptions from the duty to consult before making regulations), after "section" there is inserted "84(4A) or".").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether, in moving this amendment, I may speak to Amendment No. 84B? It is perhaps late in the passage of this important and diverse Bill through Parliament to seek the agreement of this Committee to the addition of one further clause to its provisions. It is, however, a very important clause, as I shall explain, and I hope noble Lords will acknowledge that and feel, as I do, that trespass on the limited time allocated to the Bill in this House is amply justified. The purpose of the clause is to give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport power to make regulations to allow people who have applied for their first provisional licences to start learning to drive provided they have put in their application to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea before they have received their licence, as the law currently requires.
The clause was tabled yesterday by my right honourable friend, who explained in a statement he then made why it is so necessary. Many noble Lords will have had the opportunity, I hope, to consider what he said. Over 200,000 applicants for first-time provisional licences are held up because of industrial action at the

381
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea. They are mainly young people wanting to start to drive for the first time. Many of them will have been looking forward to this for a long time with keen anticipation. I am sure that many noble Lords will themselves remember how important it was to them to begin to drive and how keenly disappointed and frustrated they would have been if they had not been able to do so, not through any fault of their own, but because of some failure in the licensing administrative system.
That is certainly the present fate of over 200,000 people, and while the computers at Swansea remain inactive, the number is rising at the rate of about 30,000 a week. By the end of this month the number will probably have reached 300,000. Moreover, I must say to noble Lords that even if normal working resumed next week, and regrettably there is no immediate sign of that, it would be many months before the large backlog could be cleared. Nor is it simply a matter of disappointing so many people. That in itself is bad enough. My right honourable friend and his department have had many, very sad, letters from or on behalf of young people who have bought vehicles in anticipation of receiving their licences but who cannot drive them. There are those too who need to have licences for their jobs or for employment they were hoping to obtain. So there is not only frustration, there is real hardship for individuals. And it does not stop there.
The driving schools have begun to feel the pinch. My right honourable friend has had discussions with their representatives—the Motor Schools Association, the British School of Motoring and others—who requested to see him to explain their difficulties. They have put it to him very clearly and strongly that the economics of the driving school business, particularly for small driving schools and instructors, are such that a reduction of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of hours of tuition per week can bring bankruptcy. Some 17,000 people are actively employed in driving tuition. Many of them are self-employed, engaged in one-man businesses, depending for their livelihood on people starting to drive and needing tuition before taking their driving tests. Representations have also been received on behalf of the motor agents who are finding that sales of vehicles, particularly the smaller motorcycles and mopeds, are beginning to fall significantly.
Why are we in this position? As the law stands, the first-time driver cannot start driving until he receives his licence. What the new clause seeks to do is to give my right honourable friend the power to make regulations allowing those people to start learning to drive provided they have sent their application to Swansea. That will bring the position of the first-time driver into line with that of someone who has previously held a licence. A licence holder who is not medically unfit to drive or disqualified can continue to drive for a year once his renewal is in. That is the effect of Section 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. So what we are seeking to do through this new clause is not in any way revolutionary. There is the precedent of the driver who needs to renew his licence. We are not in fact proposing to go as far for the first time applicant as Section 84(4) provides for the existing driver who needs to renew his licence. His position is safeguarded permanently by that subsection.
The new clause does not go that far for the person
382
applying for his first provisional licence. It provides power for the Secretary of State to make regulations, and any regulations which he makes under it will last for only a limited period, no more than a year. The power is thus provided not as a permanent change in the law, but for use in special circumstances, such as those which unfortunately exist today where there is an unusual and unreasonable delay in dealing with applications for first licences.
Some noble Lords feel that the clause could have gone further and provided for new drivers the same permanent provision that applies to those who are renewing licences. There would indeed be little risk in that from a road safety point of view. Experience shows that we can expect to reject only some 600 applications for first licences each year on grounds that the applicants are medically unfit to drive or are disqualified. That compares with about 1·4 million applications for first licences which are granted. Put another way, the number of rejections represents about 0·05 per cent.
The Government, however, have decided that the regulation-making, more temporary, power for use in specially difficult situations is, on balance, more appropriate. The regulations will have to be laid before Parliament and there will thus be opportunity for Parliament to consider the circumstances in which a Secretary of State for Transport decides to use the power. I should make clear also that there is no question of changing the basis on which a new driver is entitled to drive. We are concerned here only with when he may start driving. First-time drivers will still have to meet the usual conditions about minimum age and health and they must not be subject to disqualification. They will have to display "L" plates, always drive under supervision and not drive on motorways until they have passed the usual driving test.
I can advise the Committee that my right honourable friend intends to make the necessary regulations as soon as the Transport Bill is enacted. In this way, the delay which the people concerned would otherwise have suffered will be reduced very considerably. Furthermore, the power will be available for future use should the issue of licences be long delayed for whatever reason. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are thinking here not only of situations such as the one which exists today with the Swansea computers out of action because of the present Civil Service industrial action. Computers can cease to function for a variety of reasons and other problems can arise. I believe that this is a power which should be available to help people who want to drive and who in reality should be entitled to do so, but who cannot through no fault of their own. It is indeed fortuitous that faced with that problem as we now are, we have this Transport Bill before Parliament which can provide an early means of dealing with it. This new clause is vitally important to many thousands of worthy people, many of them suffering real and quite unwarranted hardship. We have the opportunity to help them. I ask noble Lords to take it, to approve this amendment and add the new clause to the Bill.
Lord Underhill: May I say briefly, without going into the disputes which undoubtedly have led to this situation in Swansea, that I am in agreement with the

383
provisions of this proposed new clause and clearly recognise that the longer the position is delayed we will have not only 200,000 already held up but that the backlog will be immense. Therefore, I support the Government action in this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Consequential and minor amendments of Road Traffic Act 1972 and Section 56 of Criminal Justice Act 1967]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 73, line 31, leave out ("of").
The noble Lord said: The additional wording added to Section 101(4)(a) by paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 contains an unnecessary word. This amendment removes the intrusive "of" from that wording. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Commencement of Part IV]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 84B:
Page 21, line 13, at beginning insert ("with the exception of section (Persons entitled to drive when licence applied for),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Liability of railway companies to make good damage to crops by their engines.
In section 1(3)of the Railways Fires Act 1905 and in section 2 of the Railways Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923 for the words "two hundred pounds" there shall be substituted the words "three thousand pounds".").
The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee and in the interests of brevity if I speak to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 and the consequential Amendment No. 104. This matter is perhaps not exactly pertinent to this Transport Bill, but this is the only opportunity we have had of introducing it. It arises from British Rail giving up a number of supporting lines which have over recent years been taken over by railway enthusiasts and people of that kind who tend to run steam locomotives.
Under the Railways Fires Act of 1905 and the amendment of 1923 there is provision for railway companies to be liable for damage caused to agricultural land or crops. This is in respect of fires arising from sparks or cinders emitted from any locomotive engine, but only up to a maximum of £200. In the past few years there have been a number of cases—notably the Bluebell line in West Sussex, the North Norfolk Light Railway and the Severn Valley Light Railway—where damage has been caused and there has been some difficulty regarding compensation.
Cases have been taken and discussed at the department. This has been discussed with the department
384
since early January this year. To date no satisfactory outcome of the discussions has been arrived at. It seems sensible that under this Bill we insert a new clause which will increase the liability from the £200 as set out in the 1923 Act, to something a little more appropriate in today's times. In Amendment No. 85 there is the substitution of £200 for the sum of £3,000 which the National Farmers' Union think is more appropriate.
Amendment No. 86 is an alternative in that it gives power for the Secretary of State to fix the sum. We say:
"such sum as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order".
That is the effect of these two amendments. They are options. Amendment No. 104 is consequential to that. I believe that there is a just case at this time to recognise that values have changed, that no longer can a farmer look to somebody as big as British Rail and it is going to be some smaller company. It would seem sensible therefore that smaller companies be aware of such damage that might occur were they negligent or unfortunate in causing such damage. That is what is behind these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment. The principle behind his amendment was established back in 1905. One can really see why it was a serious problem for farmers and something special needed to be done at that stage. It was updated in 1923 but has not been revised since. There are some very small and tourist-only steam railway trains operating at the moment. However, there is a great enthusiasm for old steam engines. There is the great museum at York, and, if members of the Committee have not done so, I thoroughly recommend a visit. These trains are taken out and steamed round the country. I know that British Rail wants to go electric and one must not look too far ahead but the oil will run out and no doubt when it does people will find a way of converting coal to oil and perhaps that will not make a difference. However, who is to know that steam engines—which are very efficient machines in their own bases—might not come back again over the centuries?
What my noble friend is saying is: 1905, 1923 and 1981—a 60-year gap. Let us get this in line with inflation and establish a figure. One of his amendments says let the Secretary of State update it as time goes on. This is obviously a serious matter for those farmers who have the good or bad fortune, as one may look at it, of having steam trains operate on railway lines nearby. Therefore, they should get the compensation that their fathers did before. This could keep going over the generations and if in the next century steam comes in much more than it is at the moment at least the Act will provide a basis for a sensible and reasonable compensation measuring up to what our forebears thought was reasonable for farmers in their day. It is an excellent idea and I hope that the Government will support it.
Lord Swinfen: I should also like to support this amendment. If one considers a field that cereals were normally grown in in 1905 and 1923, the straw alone

385
on those fields today would probably be worth very considerably more than £200. If by any chance a crop is burnt with the grain still in it—which is possible—the value would be high indeed. Added to that, the size of field through modern farming techniques has been considerably increased in large parts of the country. Once a fire gets going it will spread throughout a field particularly on a dry, warm and rather windy day without any chance of control. I think that the Government should accept one of these two amendments and perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will indicate to my noble friend Lord Lucas which one they are prepared to accept.
Lord Skelmersdale: We recognise that the present limit of liability of £200 is too low. Today's equivalent of £200 as it was in 1923 is approximately £2,800. The figure suggested in the first of my noble friend's amendments is not so far out. I should perhaps make it clear that, but for the Railway Fires Acts, it would be difficult for railway companies to be held liable for damage to crops by fires caused by sparks from railway engines. The reason for this is that they could plead their statutory authority to operate a railway. In other words in this particular case privileges are removed from this particiular statutory undertaker.
The Acts, in effect, restrict this defence to cases of damage over a specified limit (when proof of negligence would be needed in support of claims). But the present limit of liability of £200 is as I have said far too low; it was, after all, fixed nearly 60 years ago by the 1923 Act. I am happy, therefore, to be able to say that we welcome in principle the opportunity which these new clauses present to put the matter right.
Although British Railways have very few steam locomotives now, the number of independent preserved railway companies with steam locomotives is steadily increasing, and these operate mainly in summer when the fire risk is highest. The problem of fires caused by such locomotives is tending to grow and is of serious concern to those affected. We have every sympathy towards landowners who lose their crops as a result of fires caused by railway engines.
I know that preserved steam railways, which would be mainly affected by this measure, have very limited financial resources, but no doubt they would be able to provide for an increased amount through additional insurance cover. However, the drawback with this clause is that it specifies a figure which might need to be increased again in a few years' time. We therefore prefer the approach adopted in Amendment No. 86, which has not yet been moved of course. This would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to prescribe the figure by statutory instrument. We think the approach adopted by the second amendment provides a flexible and reasonably simple answer to this problem. However, in our view this clause would need some redrafting. It is not usual to proceed on the basis of an affirmative resolution of either House, normally an affirmative resolution of both Houses is required. We would propose that the appropriate procedure for these statutory instruments should be by negative resolution in either House. I am therefore happy to be able to accept in principle the second suggested clause, and on that basis I would ask my noble friend Lord Lucas if he would be willing
386
to withdraw both clauses at this stage, on the understanding that the Government will introduce a new clause at Report stage along the lines of the second Amendment, No. 86, with the necessary redrafting which I have just described.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am much obliged to my noble friend the Minister for what must be considered a totally satisfactory answer. I can do no more than accept his advice and his promise of a Government amendment at Report stage. While I am talking to this matter, may I add that I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench will accept that, were the noble Lord, Lord Wise, here, he, the farmer, would have moved the amendment. It is only because of my noble friend's illness that he is prevented from attending. However, with my noble friend's assurances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 85.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Road humps]:
8.22 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 21, line 26, at end insert ("after he has satisfied himself that practical experience throughout the United Kingdom has clearly shown that road humps cannot be made ineffective when drivers develop special expertise by constant practice.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to look more widely at the practical effect of road humps. As I understand it, the present part of the Bill relating to road humps is based to a large extent, from the technical point of view, on the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's Report No. 878. Reading that report, one realises that they took a lot of trouble. They tried it out and then after a period of eight months they tried again. As a result of that they judged that the scheme would be workable.
However, they do not seem—and I should like to be reassured by my noble friend if I have got this wrong—to have taken a rather wider look within the United Kingdom to see whether there is not much more practical experience with road humps in other parts of the country. I am thinking particularly of Northern Ireland, where sadly they have had not 10 months but 10 years of experience in using road humps in order to restrict the driving activities of the IRA. The main purpose of my amendment is to invite the Secretary of State to look at the experience in Northern Ireland because I am assured by people who have been there and who have businesses in Northern Ireland that in fact the road humps now are not nearly as effective as they were in the early days; this is because most drivers who use them regularly, such as van drivers, salesmen, and perhaps the IRA, learn to negotiate the humps without appreciably losing speed.
So the point of the amendment is to ask that, before introducing this section of the Bill, my noble friend and his honourable and right honourable colleagues will look into the Northern Ireland experience to see whether it is really worth while to introduce this system. It seems to me that quite soon everything that people

387
thought would reduce speed for all the purposes that one can understand, will not in fact be effective in the case of those who are experienced in their use. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am all in favour of the Minister and the department carrying out the utmost consultations possible, but I wonder whether this amendment is necessary because in the schedule there have to be regulations put forward by the Secretary of State which will cover the whole question of humps—their size, placing, type and everything else. It would appear to me that before that is done the Minister could make all the inquiries he wants. I recall that when the question of road humps was considered in Standing Committee in another place reference was made to the experiments which had been conducted and a number of Members of Parliament, not confined to one particular party, voiced the complaint that had been made by certain residents when those humps had to be taken away since they were only there for the purpose of a temporary experiment. So if it is true that there are clever drivers who find they can negotiate these humps in such a way as not to lose speed, then that is something the Secretary of State and the department can take into consideration when drawing up regulations.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have a good deal of support for this amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I do not think I am quite so implacably opposed to road humps as I was last summer, though I still have grave reservations about their efficiency. I can drive over road humps with a skill that I learned when I was a rally driver. It is not very difficult, and one can get up a tremendous speed if one wishes. I think to some extent that answers the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who accepts that it can be done by those who are practised. Indeed, it is quite a popular sport, among young gentlemen with motor-cycles and mopeds, to ride at these things pretty damned quickly—a burst on the throttle, a lift of the front, you sit well back on the machine, the front wheel goes well up in the air and you ride over the hump on the rear wheel alone. It is a great sport and I have seen it practised on Sunday afternoons just outside Winchester. So I rather think my noble friend Lord Mottistone has certainly put forward a point here which deserves a good deal more attention than perhaps has been given to it so far.
There are alternatives to road humps for reducing speed, and one of the things one might just as well mention here and now is the device that I have recently seen in a road just outside Wembley—I think it is Whitton Road West—where steel posts are set up in the road just about large enough to permit a light car or light van to go through. The posts themselves bear witness to the inaccuracies of steering in that they are coloured red, blue, yellow and other colours of assorted motor-cars. But in the middle of the road is a light, wooden, single-spar gate, which would enable an emergency vehicle to go through at speed without causing any real damage.
If one argues: "That's all very well, but what about the commercial vehicles that have to use the road?" I am suggesting that if we accept what we were told
388
last summer regarding road humps, these would be in roads intended to be used as play streets where there would be unfenced gardens and where children might come into the road without care, and of course the intention was also to stop motorists speeding through residential areas of this kind to take a short cut. It was never suggested that heavier lorries might use this short cut. But, if a furniture removal van or a lorry was on a proper journey, it would not be impossible for the gate to be opened. Therefore, it seems to me that there are a number of ways in which the same objective could be reached, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has suggested one that deserves very careful consideration.
The Earl of Avon: I am very happy to be speaking in this Chamber again about my old friends, the road humps. We had quite a lot of discussion on them last year, which I enjoyed very much. My only sorrow is that I think we lost at the last hurdle. I am rather surprised that this evening your Lordships are treating the subject as a challenge to speed, because the whole idea of road humps is that they are not a challenge to speed, so much as an opportunity to stop people from speeding. To take up the point of my noble friend Lord Lucas, the idea of a road hump is that it should be an alternative in the armoury of the people who are looking towards road safety. We are not trying to take away steel posts or barriers. What we are offering is a new alternative, which everybody who is interested in road safety feels is necessary.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested in moving this amendment, partiularly with reference to humps in Ireland, that drivers can learn how to skim over them at high speed. This is indeed possible if the humps are narrow ones—a foot wide or less—and if the drivers are unconcerned about damaging their suspension. We did not talk about how fast you can go over them and still have your car intact on the other side. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory made extensive studies of hump designs before undertaking any experiments, and these included looking at road humps in Ireland and elsewhere. They were well aware of what has been going on in connection with road humps, not only in Ireland but in Europe as well.
They looked particularly at the safety of two-wheel riders and this is why they started to experiment with much wider humps. These wider humps are 3·7 metres wide at the base and are not the narrow ones which they have in Ireland. As the House will recall from when we debated this method before, these experiments proved successful. The humps were safe and they could not be sped over. It is this now proven design of hump which will be specified in the regulations which my right honourable friend will make under the clauses of this Bill.
My noble friend has suggested that the experiments ran for too short a time for firm and final conclusions to be reached. There was pre-discussion and their term was dictated by Parliament. When the power to permit hump experiments was under consideration, a requirement was inserted—against the then Minister's advice—that the humps be removed after 12 months. Thus no trial humps could remain in place for a longer period. That requirement had none but undesirable

389
effects, the worst being that public money had to be spent on rendering roads, the safety of which had been improved, less safe again by removing the humps.
However, we have no reason to suppose that their effectiveness would have diminished within a few years. Certainly, it is most unlikely that the effectiveness would diminish appreciably within the time in which the cost of the humps could be recovered in costs of accidents prevented. My noble friend may be interested to know that an efficient road accident investigation and prevention unit can now reckon on thus covering the cost of its remedial works, on average, in two years from the time of construction. In fact, some counties, which have developed great expertise in this field, are now actually recovering the average of these costs in one year.
I see no reason to require the Secretary of State to conduct further experiments. All else apart, funds for research are restricted and it would be quite uneconomic to spend public money on a repeat of successful experiments; which, incidentally, were conducted in Scotland as well as in England. It would be regrettable, too, to delay for such a reason the benefits which humps can bring, and which some local authorities are looking forward to securing and quite a few people to having. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend Lord Mottistone will agree not to press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am, indeed, reassured by my noble friend Lord Avon, that the TRRL looked more widely than just at their own experiments. I appreciated the point he made about Parliament having restricted the length of those experiments. I take it absolutely from him that they looked at Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere in the world. With that reassurance, I feel we can accept the fact, though perhaps we shall come back to Parliament in 10 years' time and see whether this has been effective, or whether everyone has been doing what my noble friend Lord Lucas suggested, which sounded much more like a steeplechase than motorbike riding. I thank my noble friend for assisting me and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 87A:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Evidence of speeding offences.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department may prescribe by regulations the procedures to be undertaken when using radar meters or other technical devices to obtain evidence to support prosecutions of drivers in respect of alleged speeding offences").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I suggest that here we have something which is of great seriousness. We spent a lot of time on Monday discussing the values and the deterrent effects of penalty points. We discussed at very great length the question of the penalty points to be awarded in respect of speeding offences. It was suggested by some of us and agreed by some others—perhaps not agreed by all; and we did not test it that evening—that there are different cate
390
gories of speeding. There is the unfortunate lapse of attention which takes people two or three miles over the limit, and there is the hell-bent reckless driver who is trying to see whether he can do 100-plus on a motorway. Whichever view one takes, that debate certainly brought speeding into some prominence.
This amendment is designed to ensure that rules and regulations for the mechanical and electronic devices which are used by police authorities for measuring speed are used with uniformity up and down the country. The amendment requires that the Secretary of State and the Home Office prescribe by regulations the procedures to be undertaken when using these technical devices. We want this legislation to avoid a repetition of recent instances, where alleged speeding offenders were acquitted owing to the improper and incompetent use of radar guns. The rules and regulations for the use of such devices are currently left to individual police authorities, and I am suggesting that that is not equable. Different authorities—and I point no finger at any particular authority—have different standards, and this seems wrong.
In another place on 31st March this year, a Question was asked of the Home Department whether guidance would be given to the police on the use of the radar guns—Muniquip—following a successful appeal. The Minister's reply, in a Written Answer was:
"No. This is a matter for chief officers of police, and the operating instructions, which have worked satisfactorily since 1978, will be reviewed in the light of this case to see if any amendments are necessary."—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/81; col. 52.]
That was the official answer at that time. I admit that it was only in March.
I noted that the motoring correspondent, Mr. Colin Dryden, to whom I referred on Monday in another context wrote about this in the Sunday Telegraph of 7th June. I want to quote two short pieces from his article. He wrote:
"So far, the Home Office has passed the buck to the individual police forces, leaving it to them to decide whether to go on using radar guns. The police chiefs (judge and jury in their own case?) have decided that radar guns are fine when used in accordance.…"
et cetera. Mr. Dryden says:
"Presumably smart defence lawyers will now have to seek to prove that vital sections of the Hand-held Radar Speed Detection Device Operating Manual were not being complied with by the Pc at the material time. The situation is far from clear and is unsatisfactory".
In March 1981 a motorist successfully appealed against his conviction at Newport Crown Court and his honour, Judge Pitchford, made certain recommendations. The Traffic Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers asked a working group of senior police officers to examine the implications of the judge's comments. We have not arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. It appears to me that the different police forces will still interpret the manual in their own way as to when the device may or may not be used. This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State sets down the regulations and the procedures to be undertaken when using these devices. I beg to move.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I am equally aware of the question and answer given in the other place earlier this year. Chief officers of police are responsible for law enforce

391
ment in their areas, and on technical matters related to road safety are advised by the Traffic Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers who seek such expert technical advice as they think necessary. I must tell my noble friend that they all have the same advice so that afterwards they do not act differently. It is not for a bad reason. The system has worked satisfactorily (my noble friend made some play of penalty points about which we talked on Monday, but there is no change) and the Government do not think in relation to radar meters that this is a task which central Government should undertake, with all the extra resources that this would demand. In our view, the situation would not be improved.
There are six different types of radar meter or other speed measuring devices in use by police forces in England and Wales, and others are being evaluated by the Association of Chief Police Officers. To prescribe by regulation the procedures for a device would be seen as formal approval of that device, and would mean Home Office evaluation of it. This would involve considerable cost and more staff. And if the operating and evidential procedures were prescribed by regulations, the whole business would become very elaborate, and would (as in drink and driving cases now) involve evidence by Home Office scientists in at least a proportion of cases. Drinking and driving is an arrestable offence with normally much more severe penalties, and we think it is right that the breath testing devices should be certificated. But in the case of speed measuring devices we think this is a matter not for central Government but for chief officers, who are responsible for law enforcement in their areas, and for the courts which must be satisfied that the evidence is valid and accurate. After due consideration, I hope that my noble friend will not feel that he has to press this measure and make it a responsiblity of the Secretary of State.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. It would be churlish of me to say that I do not find it satisfactory. Perhaps it would be more fair of me to say that I do not find it entirely satisfactory. My noble friend has repeated the same kind of argument which we heard on Monday with regard to points. He said that the point is quite low, whereas in the case of drinking and driving it is much higher and the penalty is very much higher. Therefore, we must have a different kind of machinery and different kinds of controls. That is an argument of quality, not of principle. If we are going to have the principle, I think we must have the quality right.
Road safety is contained in this Bill, the biggest one since the late 1960s, and I do not believe that we can lightly dispense with this kind of thing. The whole of our debate this afternoon has focused on safety, on saving lives and injury. When we pass laws and make regulations we have got to make sure that the general motoring public are prepared to go along with them. There have been a number of cases—Thames Valley, the Welsh one, Tayside—where it was thought that the machinery was incorrect. I do not think I misunderstood my noble friend when he said that a number of different devices are used by different police forces. I believe we have got to standardise so that there is general acceptance.
392
I understand the answer which my noble friend gave about the resources which are available to us today but when resources are more available what do we find: we find a great spending splurge, with lots more staff so that we can put right all the wrongs of previous years. If there is a wrong, I believe we have got to put it right, and this Bill gives us an opportunity to put it right. I believe that there are injustices. May I ask my noble friend whether or not he could be a little more helpful to me. I do not want to prolong the debate but I am not prepared, just because it is late on a Thursday night, to allow what I believe to be an important matter of justice just to go by. Could my noble friend be a little more helpful to me?
The Earl of Avon: I mentioned that money was a factor but I did not base my case on it. It is a question of levels of enforcement. The Traffic Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers has concluded that the handheld radar devices now in use by police forces in the United Kingdom are accurate when used in accordance with the operating instructions and by officers who have been properly trained. The extra guideline recommended by the judge in the Gwent case is now going to be incorporated in the operating procedures, though not strictly necessary on technical grounds. The ACPO will ensure uniform procedures and the present instructions for Muniquip will be improved. I hope that that answer will give my noble friend a little more confidence.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Indeed it does. It gives me a good deal of confidence. To close the matter, may I say that I hope my noble friend and his right honourable friend will keep in the forefront of their thinking when talking about motoring offences, penalties, the methods by which we enforce legislation, the real problems which can occur. The question of law enforcement, particularly in this field, is one of public confidence. It is so often a public relations exercise and we do not want to set motorists against the police. No way do we want to do that. If the motoring organisations and motorists themselves believe that there are restrictions to be observed, that will go a long way towards ensuring that the things we are all after—such as deterrents and fixed penalties—will run smoothly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Road Humps]:
8.50 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 87B:
Page 76, line It, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (1) above, and of section 17 of the Road Traffic Act 1974").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 87B standing in my name I believe it might be helpful if I also spoke to Amendments Nos. 88A and 88B. All three amendments return to the subject of road humps. Originally we wished to ensure that road humps were allowed to be constructed only in or on roads to which a 30 mph speed limit applied. That objective appears to have been achieved in the Bill, with the exception of

393
provisions which allow the Secretary of State to continue authorising the construction of road humps in other areas.
One might be fairly sure that the present Secretary of State would be sensible about these matters; I am conscious of what was said by my noble friend Lord Avon just a few moments ago as to where road humps were to be constructed and what their prime purpose was. Nevertheless, other Secretaries of State might be tempted to install humps in what I might consider to be unsuitable places—for example, on motorways. Last summer I raised a question about road humps in Scotland and it was my noble friend Lord Avon who said that the workings in question were not road humps but were rumble strips.
The Earl of Avon: Quite right.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend said that road humps had one set of dimensions and that rumble strips had a different set of dimensions. I want to be totally assured that the Secretary of State can in no way, through the experimental clause in the old Act, allow humps to be put down on other roadways. I am happy that the highway authority cannot do so but I am not entirely happy about the position in respect of the Secretary of State, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for explaining his amendments because, as I believe he is aware, the wording of his amendments does not make tremendous sense. It is true that the only experience we have had with road humps so far is in connection with roads subject to a 30 miles per hour limit. At present we are not planning any experimental humps on roads not subject to 30 mph limits, but we are not legislating for just the next year or so and do not know what road safety needs may arise in future. We cannot show that it is impossible that road humps—perhaps of a design and subject to requirements different from those in urban areas—could benefit safety on lengths of road which do not meet the criteria for a 30 mph limit.
Because no case has yet been put to us I can only speculate on such possibilities, but it seems not inconceivable that such a requirement could arise in the case of a country park, on unfenced pasture land, or even in a village on a main road badly affected by through traffic exceeding 30 mph. In the Government's view it would be quite wrong to exclude any possibility that humps—which, as I have said, might have to be of different conformation and subject to different requirements from those applicable for 30 mph roads—could be tried out as a possible solution to safety problems. No less would it be wrong to preclude the Secretary of State, should he undertake such experiments and find them successful, from authorising highway authorities with a similar problem to install humps subject to whatever conditions the Secretary of State would wish to impose in the light of such experiments.
If all powers to install humps were tied to a 30 mph limit it is likely that highway authorities would impose such limits, regardless of normal speed limit policy, simply to qualify for humps. It would be difficult in such circumstances for the Secretary of State to
394
say to them, Nay. I do not think it right that those responsible for road safety should be forced into such disingenuities in order to promote road safety. This is the case on which the Government are resting, and although I have a slight suspicion that it will not satisfy my noble friend I am sure he will appreciate that, due to the ineffectiveness of his amendments, it would be better if he withdrew them at this stage and reintroduced them on Report, when we could take issue with them again.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, will he confirm that I am correct in believing that under paragraph 2, 90B, of Schedule 10, even where the Secretary of State himself wishes to construct a road hump—whether on a 30 mph limit road or elsewhere—he has to obtain the consent of the highways authority or, in the case of Greater London, that of the Greater London Council? If that is so, that provision would go some way to meeting the point which the Government have put forward.
The Earl of Avon: I believe the answer to that question is, Yes, but I will certainly let the noble Lord opposite know if it is not.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend Lord Avon really rather frightens me.
The Earl of Avon: Good.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend says "Good", but I do not know whether he means that. In the early part of my noble friend's response he spoke about what might happen in the next few years. While this may be an enabling provision, it does not enable matters to go on and on ad infinitum. I am desperately afraid of the thin end of wedges and his reply suggested to me that this was the thin end of a wedge. My noble friend argues that some little village might decide that it wants to have humps in the road to stop holiday traffic rushing through—and were my amendment adopted they would be so prevented—and would apply for a 30 mph limit, which it has every right to do, and thereby be enabled to put humps in the road.
If my noble friend's mind is working in such a tortuous way in this matter, goodness only knows how hard-pressed local traffic engineers out in the shires are coping, because the pressures on them are absolutely colossal.
I totally accept what the Government's present intentions are and I appreciate that the regulations are a negative procedure. In the light of what my noble friend has said I would also readily accept that my amendments may be defective. In fact, my noble friend was kind enough to discuss them with me yesterday when he pointed out the errors in my drafting. However, I explained what I was after and this evening my noble friend has given me the answer, although I am not totally reassured by his comments. It may be something of a platitude to say at this stage that I will read tomorrow in the Official Report what my noble friend has said and will then consider what I should do at a later stage—but I have to tell my noble friend that that is precisely what I should like to do, because I do not feel that I have taken full cognisance of my

395
noble friend's answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 76, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Elsewhere than in the area of Greater London a highway authority shall not exercise its authority in accordance with subsection (1) above without the agreement of the relevant district council.").
The noble Lord said: In Greater London the boroughs are the highway authorities and the Greater London Council is the traffic authority; therefore the boroughs may construct road humps but the consent of the GLC as the traffic authority has to be obtained. But we have a different situation outside Greater London, where the county councils are both the traffic and the highway authorities and under the Bill they have the authority to construct road humps. I think all noble Lords will agree that the construction of a road hump is very much a local matter and this has been recognised by the Government.
When a Private Member's Bill was before the Standing Committee in another place this was emphasised by Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport when, on 28th June 1980, he said at column 12 of the report of the Standing Committee:
"But I certainly commend the practice whereby the boroughs, or the districts where borough status has not been taken, normally come forward with proposals and their wishes are closely heeded by the county councils. Districts or boroughs should be closely involved in decisions about where to put road humps because there is a local context to any such decision".
I am certain that still remains the view of the Government. At least I hope it does, and there is no reason why it should not. I think all noble Lords would agree that it is absolutely unwise for any county council to proceed with a road hump without the agreement of the district council concerned. That is all that the amendment seeks to do: that before a road hump is constructed by the county council as the highway authority it should receive the assent of the appropriate district council.
I will not weary your Lordships much longer on this but you will all know large counties—let us just take Devon, which comes to my mind. For some reason or other it is felt that there ought to be a road hump in Lynton and the county council meeting in Exeter is the body that is going to decide. There is no compulsion that they must consult Lynton as to whether a road hump should be put there. That is absolutely ridiculous. This ought to be written into the Bill; it should not just be left as something that we hope will be carried out. I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: I strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps before I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this amendment I might just say that I was correct in the reply which I gave him at the end of the last amendment.
This amendment would give district councils a power of veto over highway authorities' hump construction proposals. I have to say that I do not think the
396
proposal is really justified. District councils have no statutory responsibilities for highways, for traffic or for road safety. All these responsibilities, for non-trunk roads outside Greater London, have been conferred by Parliament on county councils. The example which I have been given and which I like is that they are responsible even down to cattle grids. For trunk roads the authority responsible is the Secretary of State.
I am aware, of course, that county councils may, if they wish, enter into agency agreements with their district councils under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, including agreements whereby these functions are discharged by districts. I think probably this is what my honourable friend in the other place meant in the passage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, just now. These, however, are matters between the individual authorities themselves. They do not affect the statutory responsibilities given to the counties by Parliament. Not only the highway responsibility (to which the hump construction power would properly belong) but also the related traffic and road safety responsibilities are theirs, and we can see no case for allowing district councils a right of veto over the way counties exercise their responsibilities.
In this connection I should like to make a general point which I seem to remember making previously during the discussion on road humps. Several amendments to Schedule 10 seek to impose on road hump construction proposals restrictions quite different from, and much heavier than, those that attach to other highways, traffic management and road safety operations which may be much more far-reaching in their effect. I am bound to say that the Government can see no grounds for these. Hump construction powers will simply add one more power which highway authorities can use to make the road safer. Some of the alternatives are costlier and have far more impact than humps, yet the use of them is not limited by the restrictions that the amendments to this schedule seek to impose. District councils have no right of veto over the making of one-way streets, the banning of right turns, road closures or the banning of traffic in favour of pedestrians in whole areas. Why then should they suddenly be allowed to veto humps?
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested that because in London the Greater London Council have the right of veto of borough or common council hump proposals, district councils outside London should have a similar veto over counties' proposals. We do not recognise this precedent. Clause 90A(2) reflects a situation unique to London. Only in London are the highway and traffic responsibilities split; on non-trunk roads the borough or common council is the highway authority and the GLC the traffic authority. Thus the GLC could, without its veto right, find its performance of its statutory duties as traffic authority handicapped by a borough's installation of humps in the performance of its highway function; but this situation has no parallel outside Greater London, where all relevant responsibilities are statutorily vested in the county councils. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not wish to press this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Can my noble friend say

397
whether he would have the same objection where the Bill required the highway authority to consult with the district council? Obviously then the power of veto to which he has referred would not apply, and yet it would give the district council a reasonable voice in what could be a fairly contentious matter, particularly were the decision made some 60 or 70 miles away from the place of action.
Viscount Hanworth: I do not think the Minister fully appreciates that from the motorist's point of view humps are objectionable. They may be necessary but I fear that there will be a fatal tendency, particularly from a local point of view, to put them in when they are not justified. It is no good asserting that it is all a safety precaution. One may think that in fact in many circumstances it does not do anything for safety, except being a convenient method of reducing the speed to almost nothing; and very often, without sufficient warning, quite apart from that, there might be considerable damage to somebody's car. I and many other noble Lords are afraid that there might get to be a habit of putting in humps locally, which is very nice for local people no doubt as long as you do not live in the road, which are really a menace and a danger. That is the reason why we wish to tie this down to an extent which so far the Government seem unwilling to accept.
The Earl of Avon: If I might reply to those two remarks, to my noble friend Lord Lucas the consultation requirements will be dealt with in regulations. I am also a driver of a car and have driven for some 30 years in London. I have seen road humps in London during the experimental time. I have also seen the making of one-way streets, the banning of right turns, road closures and the banning of traffic for the benefit of pedestrians in whole areas. The other four have been just as annoying as road humps to me. I really do not see why you should differentiate between them in this particular case.
Viscount Hanworth: I must come back on that. There is a very big difference. The others are inconvenient, but unless you have adequate warning, and if you get these humps distributed all over the place, you can very easily do considerable damage to your car if you are caught unawares.
The Earl of Avon: There will be proper road signs and if you obey the road signs you will not be caught unawares.
Viscount Hanworth: The Minister must realise there are too many road signs on the road and there are occasions when these signs can be missed, particularly if the humps are put in unreasonable places.
Lord Underhill: I must make it clear, in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said, that when we discussed the previous road hump Bill I did not move an amendment to this effect; I had one down on the Marshalled List, but I withdrew it for certain reasons of which the noble Earl is only too aware. Therefore, it has not been tested before your Lordships. This is one of these cases where a statutory responsibility
398
overrides sheer common sense. As the Minister has said this matter will be dealt with in regulations, I give notice now that if I cannot move this amendment because of the statutory responsibility of the highway authority, I shall consider putting down an amendment at Report stage to provide in the schedule that there shall be the necessary consultation with the district council. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 88A and 88B not moved.]
9.6 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 78, line 15, leave out ("such") and insert ("the national association of local authorities and such other").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with Amendment No. 89, we take Amendment No. 91 which deals with a somewhat similar principle. Both these amendments relate to the regulations about which we have heard from the Minister, which will deal with the construction and maintenance of road humps, their nature, dimensions, location and spacing, and also the placing of relevant signs. Although there is provision in the schedule that before making such arrangements the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit, the amendment proposes quite definitely that in the case of England and Wales the national associations of local authorities shall be consulted, and in Scotland the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I think the point has already been made that the question of road humps is of vital importance to local authorities, and before these regulations are drawn up, on something which is entirely new, except for the experimental period we had in certain areas, the relevant local authority associations ought to be consulted, and this is a matter that I propose in this amendment should be written into the schedule. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: This is, of course, something with which we have much sympathy because it is something we consider we do. This amendment is also almost a hardy annual, in that I believe the principle has been put in varying forms in various legislation by both parties over the years.
To take this amendment in detail, there is first the difficulty on purely technical grounds. Amendment No. 89 refers to "national association of local authorities", whereas in England there are four such associations, for county, municipal, district and local councils, which with the London Boroughs Association and the Greater London Council are invariably consulted on any of our draft regulations. I imagine the amendment intends to cover all these. Secondly, on wider policy considerations these amendments are unwelcome, because they seek to vary the form always used in legislation dealing with consultation on proposals to make regulations. There is good reason for a formula which specifies no consultees at all. For one thing, if one starts specifying, where does it stop?
As I have pointed out, there are in England six local authority bodies to be consulted. There is another—a committee, not an association—in Wales.

399
There are, moreover, literally dozens of other organisations that have a reasonable expectation that they will be consulted, as indeed they will be. Once specifying begins, there is an understandable fear that non-specification may mean non-consultation, or that the views of the non-specified will carry little weight. Attempts to specify exhaustively every organisation which it would be proper to consult would be impractical. Last year, for instance, the Department of Transport, when drafting the new traffic signs regulations, consulted more than 70 bodies, including as always the local authority associations. Furthermore, even if an exhaustive list were written into the legislation, it might not remain effective for long. New bodies with relevant interests come into existence; existing ones disappear, or, sometimes, change their names.
Could we really contemplate revising every few years every measure that provided for specific consultation on regulations, in order to keep specification up to date? Even if it were thought the standard formula should be changed, a minor provision of this kind is perhaps not the right context for that consideration. I believe that the existing approach is the only sensible one. With those assurances I hope that I may have relieved Lord Underhill's mind.
Lord Underhill: I must apologise for the omission of the word "associations" and the inclusion of the word "association". I meant it to be "associations". We must put that down to the fact that we on this side of the Committee have to do our own typing of amendments.
It is always difficult to reply to what seems to be a sensible, logical answer, when frankly the Government agree with what I want. Why not put it in the Bill? I have had to deal with this issue as regards the Transport Bill in 1980. I just cannot understand why, when the Government say that they will consult with these bodies, we cannot have it written into the Bill. There might be another Secretary of State who might not want to consult. Every time we move an amendment like this one, everybody thinks of the present good, decent, trustworthy Secretary of State. But Secretaries of State can change. Therefore, we ought to write into the Bill what we feel ought to be done. It is clear that the Minister tonight will not agree; therefore I shall look carefully at what he has said and see whether or not, either in the same form or some other form, we may come back on Report to this issue. I think that logic is on the side of the amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No 90:
Page 79, line 15, at end insert—
("90EE. A statutory instrument containing any regulations under Part 1 of this Schedule shall be subject to a resolution approved by both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No 90, and with the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 92. I hope that on this occasion I shall have more success because this is, I believe, an even more reasonable amendment. As mentioned when considering the previous amendments,
400
there is provision in the schedule for the Secretary of State to make regulations in connection with the provision of road humps. As far as I can see—and I have read the schedule three or four times—and unless there is some hidden provision elsewhere in another Bill, there appears to be no provision for the regulations to come before Parliament
Road humps, as I said on the previous amendments, will be something entirely new except for the experiments which have been conducted in a few areas. It seems to me that these regulations would be of such importance, dealing with all the points which are laid down in the schedule which will have to be dealt with, that they should come before Parliament. What the two amendments propose—one for Scotland and one for England and Wales—is that the statutory instrument containing any regulations shall come before Parliament and be subject to a resolution by both Houses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: So far as I understood the noble Lord's amendments, they were to substitute the affirmative resolution for the negative resolution. They are actually subject to the negative resolution at the moment. I was not sure from the noble Lord's remarks whether he realised that.
Lord Underhill: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. For my own benefit, would the Minister tell me where the question of the negative resolution is referred to? There is reference to regulations.
The Earl of Avon: I think that I shall have to come back to the noble Lord on that point, but I can assure him that they are subject to the negative resolution.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I can assist my noble friend. Is it not Clause 30(2) which contains the relevant negative procedure?
The Earl of Avon: I thank my noble friend for that interruption. Section 325(2) of the Highways Act, 1980—the hump section—is additional to the 1980 Act; but I still think that that probably does not clear up the matter and I will clarify it.
Lord Underhill: I hope that the Minister will try to clarify it. If his point is correct, naturally I shall not press the amendment further later. But in the present circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 79, line 17, leave out ("in or").
The noble Lord said: I cannot quite let road humps slide by without asking for some explanation of this rather extraordinary description in the Bill of humps being "in" or "on". I should have thought that a hump was "on" the surface of a road. I ask my noble friend whether "in" or "on" is not somewhat confusing. Is it not perhaps a legacy of the days when we spoke about humps and depressions?—humps being "on" and depressions being "in". The object of my amendment is to remove the "in" so that we do

401
not get things going down into the road, but stay with humps that will be on top of the road. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: This brings me back to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, when I had problems with whether eggs were "in" or "on" a nest. I assure the Committee that there are absolutely no problems about this; there is nothing that the Government are trying to hide.
The profile of a road hump would always be a convex curve above the normal level of the surface of the highway. But its installation may take various forms. It could involve simply laying a pre-formed hump, suitably bonded, on to the surface of the highway, or construction on site, wholly or in part, with the hump perhaps fully set into the surface of the highway for added strength. It is this latter one where we need the "in". It could even, if undertaken as part of a highway surface reconstruction, involve humping as part of the highway surface as reconstructed. The method would depend on the circumstances and on the materials to be used for the hump. I think that it is wholly appropriate that installation either in or on the highway be allowed for in the definition of a road hump. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am delighted that my noble friend can assure me that there was nothing sinister. I had a horrible feeling that something was to be hidden in the road underneath the hump, but he assures me that that is not so. All is to be revealed on the hump on the surface in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 82, line 15, at end insert—
("Alternative provisions
. Whenever the Secretary of State or the local highway authority propose to construct a road hump under the terms of this Schedule, they shall give careful consideration to the likelihood that its purposes will be better served by barriers of appropriate design to suit the road to restrict the width of the effective roadway. Such barriers should be constructed so as to be capable of being removed by officials of the local highway authority for special reasons.").
The noble Lord said: As can be seen by your Lordships, this amendment asks that careful consideration should be given to alternatives to road humps. Rather like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, as a motorist, I have an instinctive dislike for road humps. I think that they will be a confounded nuisance and, indeed, where they already exist, they are. I do not think that they make me drive any better and I do not think that they are any safer, but so be it.
The alternative that one has seen in London of a road narrowing device seems to me to be very much better. My noble friend Lord Bellwin kindly wrote to me on 20th May as a result of this debate on Second Reading, and he made very clear the fact that this alternative would be available in appropriate places. I have tabled this amendment to give my noble friend an opportunity to give the Committee and the world
402
the benefit of the splendid second paragraph of his letter of 20th May. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment because in the interests of car springs, surely it would be better to have a barrier on either side to narrow the width of the road. One would have to slow down anyway, but one would not hurt one's car springs. I think that that would be a far better arrangement than these horrible humps.
Lord de Clifford: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment as well. I have only had one experience of a road hump and I passed it, much to the annoyance of a traffic warden, before I even knew it was there. I was going into a police switch which was a dead end, and they had a notice up, which was concealed by scaffolding, which did not permit us unless we had arrived there before 9.30 a.m. It would have been simpler had there been a barrier, so that one would know what was happening rather than going over a road hump which one did not even notice. One of the things that local authorities do not realise at the present moment is what road humps are. They put them up generally at a height which they think makes a hump. In this case there was no hump. But a barrier like this would have produced the right result without having to go to the expense of a hump.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry that my noble friends are so anti-humps. Perhaps if they had pushed prams along the pavement and wanted to cross a road they might have preferred to have a hump than to have to go down a kerb. Perhaps if they lived near a dangerous corner where there is lots of squeaking of wheels they might rather prefer that a car slowed down before because there was a hump. However, I understand that most of my noble friends are more accustomed to being behind a driving wheel than behind a perambulator.
The amendment would in effect tell authorities to consider before constructing road humps whether an alternative would serve the same purpose. But this is something any competent highway authority would be doing anyway—such advice would be almost too obvious for issue. Authorities do not in this context start with a solution—except perhaps in a new road or new estate construction; they start with a problem. There may well be other possible answers to the sort of problems road humps could solve. Indeed, we can all think of quite a number. There could for instance be solutions by traffic management means; banning turns, for example, or one-waying the street, or even closing it. There could be other remedies by way of highway engineering. The road might for example have sharp artificial bends created at each end, or it might be zig-zagged along its length.
A combination of traffic management and highway engineering measures might offer a suitable answer. The measures potentially suitable will depend on local circumstances, and the highway authority must, having identified them, evaluate them to choose the best. Cost, including cost-effectiveness in terms of accident reduction, will be a most important factor here. There may however be other relevant factors, which will carry particular weight if the costs of two or more possible

403
solutions are much the same. Possible effect on traffic movement is obviously one. Another is possible environmental effect, and here I have in mind not so much visual effect as effect in making life a bit easier and happier for local people. The barriers my noble friend proposes would probably bring no such benefits.
I should also like to bring out one other matter. Any local authority on being consulted by the highway authority about these things will take into account local problems and local opinions. This is really the point of getting the local people's advice before you go ahead with something. Should the residents in any way not wish for a road hump, I am sure that that would be really and truly considered. I have not quite realised the second paragraph written by my noble friend Lord Bellwin to the noble Lord, but I hope with this explanation too he will be convinced that his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Mottistone: I get the gist of what my noble friend has said. The second paragraph of his noble friend's letter was indeed much more succinct, much more to the point, and much more convincing. I wrote back to my noble friend Lord Bellwin and said that I thought it was so good that I was putting down this amendment so that he might convey the gist of that in answer to this question. Somehow the machinery within his department, with the greatest possible respect to it, seems to have failed to take cognisance of this point. I am sorry for your Lordships because you would much rather have heard the second paragraph than what my noble friend Lord Avon has just declared to you. However, it is true that, although it is not the gist of it, because it is three times as long, the sense is vaguely the same. That is, people will use their common sense and we will not be littered with humps, and where road narrowing is better, we will have that. That is the gist of my noble friend's letter and, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 31 [New basis of vehicle excise duty for goods vehicles]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
9.31 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 21, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) The gross weight referred to in Tables 1 and 2 of Schedule 11 for the purpose of determining the duty payable shall be the maximum gross weight at which the vehicle can be legally operated for the duty period for which vehicle excise duty is paid. This gross weight, if less than the maximum gross operating weight for which the vehicle is designed, shall be prominently displayed on the vehicle in a manner which shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulation.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for allowing me to put the case, as it were, and for withdrawing his Amendment No. 94, which was all but identical to mine, and perhaps we may have the benefit of his support in due course.
404
I wish also to thank my noble friend's department for having assisted me with some statistics which they endeavoured to gather. They obviously took an immense amount of trouble, though unfortunately the statistics were not convincing either to them or to me to the extent I had hoped they might be. Nevertheless, they have been helpful in putting the case.
I will not delay the Committee because I spoke on this issue on Second Reading. I would remind your Lordships that the problem is that lightweight goods—that is, lightweight in proportion to their volume, like many biscuits and cakes (your Lordships know that I have an interest in biscuits and cakes which perhaps I should declare again) and crisps and, in another sense, furniture—occupy in a standard heavy goods vehicle the full size of it by volume but very much less by weight than the vehicle is designed and basically plated for. The problem arises where such vehicles are used extensively by manufacturers, particularly food processing manufacturers with perishable goods.
Under the new rules for taxation in proportion to gross weight (coupled with the fact, as has been said earlier, that the overall balance of the taxation will be shifted to put it more in proportion to the amount of damage vehicles can do to the roads; therefore lighter vehicles will have less taxation and heavier-ones more than is currently the case) companies which use standard vehicles for standard products—which in the case of cakes and biscuits is, roughly speaking, about two-thirds of the weight of the plated value; in other words, a 32-ton vehicle will have probably only 20 tons of cakes and biscuits within it—could, over a period of time when regularly using such vehicles, be at a substantial financial disadvantage if they are having to pay the tax on a 32-ton vehicle when in fact they are carrying only 20 tons. What is more, it is not fair because the gross weight of the vehicle is that much lighter than the weight they are paying tax on.
Hence, the object of the amendment—and, with permission, I am speaking not only to my Amendment No. 94A but also to No. 94, which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has not moved, and Nos. 95 and 96—is to give the Government the opportunity by regulation to allow for what is colloquially known as down-plating, so that a vehicle which is to all intents and purposes a 32-tonner has very large letters written on the side of it. This was an issue in the Commons which was not really taken up fully. The Commons dealt with the matter thoroughly in Committee and at that time the Government were fundamentally sympathetic to the idea though, as I shall develop shortly, had reservations about its practicability.
However, having said that, I should like to make clear to my noble friends on the Front Bench that, as I see it, the down-plating would have to be displayed in letters about 3 ft. high, stating "20 tonnes", so that any policeman or Government official responsible for these matters could see at a glance that the vehicle was so marked. Perhaps he would become suspicious because of where he happened to see the vehicle. For instance, it might have written on it "Huntley & Palmer's Biscuits" but be coming out of a steel factory That would be surprising. The policeman or official might be suspicious and so could then take in the vehicle and have it check weighed. Likewise, if it bore a large marking stating "20 tonnes" and was

405
clearly down on its axles, bearing even more than 30 tonnes, the policemen or official could be suspicious and have it taken in for checking. The whole idea is that vehicles should be very well marked. Of course it would not pay Huntley and Palmer's to get themselves a bad name. Quite apart from the fact that the company would not be allowed a down-plating taxation certificate for the vehicle for the following year, it is beyond comprehension that a well-established company would risk damage to its good name and credibility by trying to cheat.
So I now turn to the example of the chap who is a general haulier and who periodically carries biscuits. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who knows this type of haulier much better than I do, would say that most of them are very reputable, and if they are to have a vehicle that will carry biscuits on Day 1 and steel ingots on Day 2 they will not bother to get a special down-plating reduction on their taxation level. They will go for the heaviest weight for which they normally use the vehicle. As I understand it, some of them will find themselves regularly using vehicles for particular jobs on a contract basis, in which case they will take advantage of the situation and will do their down-plating and live up to it.
Now there could be the lunatic fringe. We always have that problem in your Lordships' House, that there is a danger of legislating—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mottistone: I shall not be diverted. It applies equally to our colleagues in another place. There is a danger that the Government might be so worried about not causing too much trouble for the police and their own officials that they try excessively to safeguard against the lunatic fringe; and it is here that one must judge and weigh up the situation.
The department of my noble friend the Minister discovered for me that, very roughly speaking, 9 per cent. of the total of heavy goods vehicles in the country carry perishable foodstuffs. Of course some of the perishable foodstuffs are overweight and these are balanced by other products, such as furniture (which I mentioned earlier), to which the same problem applies. So perhaps in this respect we can say that there are involved about 10 per cent. of all vehicles. Let us say that of those the vast majority are operated by honest traders, trying to do their best. They want to try to work within reasonable financial limits. They do not want to be at a disadvantage under the new taxation system, and they are going to do the thing properly. Perhaps 0·1 of 1 per cent. of all the vehicle operators will cheat. That is probably a risk worth taking. The Government are not going to lose very much tax because, after all, we are talking about a down-plating at the most of only two-thirds; and as I say, the vast majority of people will operate within the rules.
I hope that if the Government cannot accept my amendments as they stand, they might be able to propose their own alternative in order to try to make the situation fair. As was said in another place by the Secretary of State, the object of this proposal is to have a neutral taxation system which is fair to all—
406
fair to the lightweight vehicles and in proportion to the damage done to the road. I am saying the same again: let us make it fair and make it still in proportion to the damage done to the road. The 32-ton vehicle taking 20 tons does equivalently, shall we say, two-thirds the amount of damage to the road. Let us be fair right across the board and introduce this system, which of course would be optional. People would take it up only when they thought that they could operate within it sensibly; and if they did not, and if they had variable loads, they would not do it. So let us see whether we can have a system which is going to make it fair for all and sensible and usable by those who need it. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: It may be that I should say a few words on this to indicate that I did not withdraw my own amendment because I did not support the proposition so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is clear that I was wise to leave it to Lord Mottistone to move the amendment, because of his close interest in this matter and, frankly, of his coming so closely in touch with it in his everyday commercial contacts. Then it might be asked: Why did I trouble to put down an amendment in the first place? I have no commercial interests. My interest is that of equity, and that was the interest of my honourable friends in the other place who put down a similar amendment at both Committee stage and Report stage. It is on the grounds of equity that I hope the Government will listen to the case which has been so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
It must always be kept in mind that at the end of the day haulage charges are reflected in the prices of goods in the shops. I know this has been mentioned (I believe Lord Mottistone mentioned this at Second Reading) but it is worthwhile reminding other noble Lords what the Freight Transport Association have said. They have quoted one company which, under the present procedure, pays £70,000 a year in excise tax, but which under the proposals in this Bill will pay £280,000—four times as much. Nobody can suggest that this is equity, when they are not transporting goods of a weight which would warrant that huge tax. Therefore, on the grounds of equity alone I think the Government should take a careful look at this proposition.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said, the Government Minister was not unsympathetic, and I decided to put down another amendment mainly in the light of the two reasons that the Minister gave why his sympathy could not stretch to accepting the amendment. His first reason for not doing so was, he said, because there has to be rough and ready justice. Frankly, an issue of this kind, which can be dealt with by a simple amendment, as Lord Mottistone has pointed out, should not be left to rough and ready justice. I think Lord Mottistone has explained quite clearly that a simple amendment would enable only a tiny few to get through the net, and that is far better than allowing rough and ready justice to be applied in the case of excise tax in this matter.
The other reason for not accepting it which the Minister in the other place gave was, he said, this problem of enforcement. I believe noble Lords will have listened to what Lord Mottistone has said. The problem of enforcement is one that is really not a

407
problem at all. It may enable just a few people to get through the net, but the companies concerned here are going to be reputable companies. They are going to be companies who use these vehicles only for the delivery of these light goods. Therefore, there is no reason at all why the amendment which has been proposed, and to which I give my complete support, should not be accepted by the Government. If they cannot accept this proposal in the actual words of the amendment, I hope they will decide to take the matter back and then bring forward another amendment in the spirit of what is intended in this one.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may give support in principle to my noble friend's amendment; and may I compliment him on the expert manner in which he deployed his argument? It really was rather splendid. I think he should join those of us who have more work in haulage, rather than stay in the biscuit business. However, what the noble Lord said I believe to be quite correct but it is not as simple as that. As far as the rigid vehicles go, this is quite understandable because his large sign can be displayed. There is a constancy about a rigid vehicle. When you come to articulated vehicles and road trains, there you enter into a veritable forest of confusion. I think I can only describe it in that way.
I am going to apologise here and now to the Committee because I shall have to read some of the remarks I want to make because it is so complex that otherwise I could get it wrong. I do not want your Lordships when you read my words tomorrow to say, "The chap did not know what he was talking about. He had it round the wrong way". I want to concentrate for the moment on articulated vehicles. Currently the idea is that there is a continuation of the present system whereby an articulated vehicle is taxed at the total unladen weight of the tractor portion and the heaviest trailer, except that in the new system all this will be based on gross weight rather than unladen weight. On the face of it that appears to be all right, but it could be extremely unfair, and I believe probably quite unworkable, because the gross weight of articulated vehicles varies with a number of other factors and not least the axle spread. For example, an articulated vehicle's weight is determined by the distance in metres between the rearmost axle of the drawing vehicle and the foremost axle of the trailer, and where the distance is less than three metres on a four-axled vehicle the gross permitted weight is some 26,400-odd kilograms; but the plated gross train weight would probably go to 32 tonnes.
Looking at the schedule on page 82, line 41, Table 1:
"Goods vehicles of a gross or train weight not exceeding 12 metric tonnes",
the description is an "articulated goods vehicle"; The factors determining the rate of duty: train weight of vehicle. The first question to which one must get an answer is, what is the train weight? Is it the gross train weight on the plate or is it the weight to which the vehicle is working and is limited by virtue of the trailer that it is then drawing? If it is the former, then some 30-foot trailer operators probably will be paying a good deal more than they ought to because their vehicle is probably plated at 32 tonnes gross vehicle. If it is the latter, then the tax payable will probably change day by day as a different trailer is being used.
408
The point that my noble friend made is that if you are getting a contract operator some days he is carrying biscuits, other days he is carrying steel and other days he is carrying something else: obviously he will use a variable unit. This is the whole point of articulated lorries. Sometimes it is a big one for large loads and sometimes a small one for heavy weights. The number of axles on the vehicle and trailer has an effect on the tax payable. There is probably no doubt that the draftsman of the legislation had this in mind in Table 2 of the schedule. This axle spread has an effect as I have described and it is not catered for at all in the legislation.
What this boils down to is—not to depart at all from what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, or my noble friend said—that there is more in this than meets the eye, that the concept of tax on gross weight is fine so far as it goes, but it has not been thought right through. We have the construction and use regulations which have a bearing on the restrictions of axle spread, and that again has a bearing on taxation.
Not to prejudice the future, it is a fact that multipurpose vehicles have a bigger role to play in the haulage industry in the transportation of goods, in the extension of the factory production line, than ever before. By their use, we reduce the number of vehicles in use. We reduce the objections—or some of them—to the heavy goods vehicle industry. So we cannot not now permit a taxation system that is going to penalise a multi-unit operator who will then turn back to "rigids" because the taxation levels can be lower. Neither do we want to encourage motor vehicle manufacturers to build down unladen weight vehicles to meet the kind of criteria that my noble friend was speaking about because this is harmful in terms of international marketed vehicles. They have to be of one kind. One cannot allow the buyer to be faced with the inevitability of buying a vehicle of a given unladen weight which per se has a plated weight when he is not going to use it because he is going to look for something else which I believe could be more dangerous.
Having made that extremely complicated contribution to my noble friend's amendment, may I say to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale that I do not want an answer nor do I wish to get too involved in an argument about weights, axle spreads and so on this evening. I am going to suggest that he takes away this matter and has another look at it, because it is a big problem.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am perfectly prepared to accept that the weight of my argument goes up and down depending on the time of night I am speaking and what I am speaking about. Having said that, perhaps I may turn back to the amendment. In logic and equity, there is some force in the arguments that we have heard today—some force, but I am afraid still not enough to convince me. I shall go into the reasons for this in a minute. If I may first stick strictly to the amendment, the Bill has already the flexibility to deal with a down-plating provision should we require it.
I would draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 32(3)(a), which enables the Secretary of State to substitute different definitions for the gross weight and the train weight of a vehicle which is laid

409
down in Clause 32(2). This provision means that the Government can continue to listen to the down-plating argument so that a scheme of the type discussed today can be introduced if necessary. I should be delighted if that explanation on the amendment will satisfy the Committee but I have no doubt that it will not.
The Committee will expect me to put the other side of the coin to that so ably explained by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, backed up by other noble Lords. We must not lose sight of the fact that the basic purpose of vehicle excise duty is to raise revenue. There is a limit to the degree of fine-tuning which can sensibly be imported into the tax system. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in another place, where this issue was being debated during earlier stages of the Bill's passage:
"There is bound to be a certain element of rough and ready justice as between operators and vehicles because we have to work on averages, and no system can be devised to reflect every variation between vehicle operations".
That comes from the report of the Committee proceedings, col. 31 on 31st March this year.
The essential feature of a down-plating provision is that it would allow an operator to decide his own tax liability in the light of his own operating circumstances. It would mean in effect a voluntary plating arrangement solely for VED purposes. Against this, the proposals in the Bill take the plated weight as determined for construction and use purposes. That weight is clearly understood, unambiguous and, unless there are physical changes to the vehicle, permanent. I hope my noble friend Lord Lucas would appreciate that point. Therefore, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind what the duty liability for that vehicle should be.
I have no doubt that the majority of companies would not seek to abuse a down-plating provision, but a less scrupulous operator who, for example, was temporarily short of cash might find the temptation too great. He could simply declare a low operating weight, thereby making a substantial saving on his tax liability, and run the risk of being caught at a higher operating weight. In moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested that this might apply to 0·1 per cent. in the transport of goods for the food industry, but although I have not had time to do any sums I would estimate that this is something in the region of 7,000 vehicles—and that is no small number, as I am sure he will agree.
My noble friend's series of amendments is partly addressed to this issue. He has provided for the vehicle's taxable weight to be prominently displayed on the vehicle. Certainly there is absolutely no doubt from his description as to what he intends, but it would only partly solve the problem. It would of course suggest to the enforcement authorities which vehicles might be worth stopping. However, the vehicles would have to be check-weighted to verify whether or not an offence had been committed. It has been argued that such an arrangement would simply be an extension of the present work of the police and enforcement agencies in checking that a vehicle is not overloaded for construction and use, that is safety, purposes. This is not quite so.
The fact is that an experienced enforcement officer
410
can spot which vehicles are likely to be overloaded for safety purposes, for example, by the way the load is distributed. But there would be no way of assessing visually whether a down-plating operator was cheating with vehicle excise duty. An operator could be exceeding his taxable operating weight but still be well within the maximum carrying weight of the vehicle. Enforcement staff, therefore, could not visually identify likely tax dodgers. In short, a system of voluntary down-plating would mean a new type of enforcement activity, with vehicles which would not otherwise be stopped for road safety purposes being checked for an overloading offence.
These are the counter-arguments I promised your Lordships. However, I should make it clear that the Government have not finally ruled out the possibility of providing for down-plating when restructuring is implemented. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has made this clear in another place. As he noted in the earlier debates on this aspect of the Bill, there are other issues which are relevant to the final structure and to the duty relativites between one vehicle and another.
In particular the department is reviewing some of the factors on which road track costs are calculated in the light of representations from the interests concerned. This means that the incidence of road track costs could have altered somewhat by the time the change to a gross weight basis is implemented. We must also bear in mind that it is for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide just how the tax scale is graduated between different classes of vehicle and when, in a future Budget, he will introduce it.
These aspects will all need to be borne in mind before final decisions are taken on the structure. It will be evident from my remarks that the Government are not convinced by the down-plating case and remain sceptical about its case both in equity and enforceability; but we shall continue to consider it and will certainly bear in mind the views expressed by your Lordships today.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked me a question about gross train weight. Taxation will be based on the gross train weight of the tractor vehicle; that takes account of the weight of the trailer. Also, gross train weight takes account of the axle spacing of the vehicle. The gross train weight is the maximum for the vehicle. Some trailers, however, must be used at other than the maximum weights prescribed on the tractor. In short, the operator can use a tractor with a mix of trailers. He must tax it according to the gross train of the tractor. My noble friend demonstrated the use to which such a fleet might be put. Although I must confess that I do not understand it too well, I hope that that will mean more to him than it does to me.
Lord Mottistone: I am both slightly pleased and slightly disappointed at my noble friend's reply. I thought it was a little unfortunate that he had to fall back on the rough justice argument particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had reminded him of it. It is all very well to speak about rough justice. People who try to operate and make a success of their business, and do not want to have to pay a penny more than is

411
necessary—otherwise, it only comes off the poor unfortunate customer—are not doing this for fun. Rough justice is all very well, but if you are talking about 10 per cent. of the heavy goods vehicles of the country, it is a bit rough if they are badly off. So I hope my noble friend will persuade his department to be a little freer and try to have a thought about commercial operation.
It is all very well sitting in Whitehall, pushing papers together and writing out briefs to Ministers. But to put up all those little log jams and say: "Of course, we sympathise. But there are so many difficulties that we could not put it into effect", is so uncommercial. We are talking about a commercial operation, and about how people can earn money for this country, not only by selling cheaply to the customers of this country, but by exporting goods. I was at a meeting with the Customs yesterday. We are trying to do something as economically as possible and not to be held up with bureaucracy, with people trying to protect the police from too much trouble. God help us! We are in a commercial country, which depends on good commercial results. We have to put that first. Until we do put it first, we shall not succeed in getting this country on its feet. I ask my noble friend to try to make sure that his advisers and his fellow Ministers understand that this is a matter of trying to make sure that the job can be done as economically as possible in given circumstances. It is as simple as that.
The little good point is that my noble friend told me that he thinks that he could introduce down-plating and perhaps he could even do what my noble friend Lord Lucas wants under Clause 32(2)(a). If that is so—and I have to take his word for it—that is jolly good. Substituting different definitions will allow him to do all that my amendment seeks to do. So we have at least got our foot in the door, because the Minister said that. We now have to attack and try—God help us !—to convert the total Whitehall machine into a commercially minded and oriented body. We must try. The country will go to the dogs if we do not succeed. That is the problem.
I am delighted to have the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on my side in this matter, because noble Lords opposite do not have a very good reputation for understanding the commercial realities of life. It is jolly nice to think that they have this understanding of a commercial reality, and let us hope that we stick together. However, with a slender promise of Clause 32(2)(a) being a way through and, I hope, an understanding by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, if not by his advisers or anybody else, that he will try to do something to understand what we want and to grasp the commercial implications, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But I may come back again on Report to underpin what I am trying to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Interpretation of s.31 and Schedule 11]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Charges for licensing of cabs and cab drivers]:
10.5 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("(3A) The fee chargeable under subsection (3) above shall not exceed twenty five pounds or such other sum as a district council may, subject to subsection (3B) below from time to time determine.
(3B) If a district council determine that the maximum fee specified in subsection (3A) above shall be varied, subsections (3) to (5) of section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as amended by the following subsection of this section shall apply in relation to licences issued under the said Act of 1847 as they apply to licences issued under the said Act of 1976.
(3C) Section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 shall be read and have effect as if in place of subsection— (5) there were substituted the following sub-sections—
"(5) If objection is duly made as aforesaid and is not withdrawn the district council shall set a further date, not later than two months after the first specified date, on which the variation shall come into force with or without modification made in accordance with subsection (5A) below.
(5A) Forthwith after setting a further date under subsection (5) above the district council shall refer the objection to the Traffic Commissioners and the decision of the Traffic Commissioners made after considering the submissions of the district council and of persons or bodies which in their opinion are representative of the taxi trade within the district shall be final and binding.".").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that at this time of night I shall have to explain the precise reason and intention behind Amendment No. 97. This clause relates to the charges for licensing of cabs and cab drivers. The Bill provides for the possibility of increased charges. Subsections (1) and (2) relate to the Metropolitan area and provide that the Secretary of State must give approval to any new sum which may be proposed. Although there are matters of concern with regard to charges in London, as the taxi trade always has the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State the amendment does not seek to deal with the clause in so far as it relates to the London area, particularly as the Secretary of State, as I have mentioned, has to give approval to any new sum which may be proposed. However, subsection (3) provides for a changed procedure outside the Metropolitan area.
No change is proposed in the case of district councils which have adopted the provisions of Section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That Act lays down maximum charges and provides also that these may be varied by the district council concerned. Where the licence fees are increased, the only opportunity for appeal is for objections to be made to the district council—that is, to the same body as proposed the increased fees. There is no opportunity for appeal to the Secretary of State or to any independent body. In the case of these particular district councils, any increase in fees does not require the approval of the Secretary of State. That procedure surely is inequitable. There is need for the taxi trade to have the opportunity to appeal to an independent body.
When we look at the case of the district councils which have not adopted the provisions of the 1976 Act but which continue under the Town Police Clauses

413
Act 1847, the position will be even worse in terms of the clause which is now before your Lordships. As drafted, the Bill will enable those councils—and there is a very substantial number of them—to fix increased fees. I am not arguing that there may not be a case for increased fees. That is not the issue. But the approval of the Secretary of State for an increase will not be required in the case of those councils which are operating under the 1847 Act. There is no provision for any objection even to the district council, which of course there is at present under the 1976 Act. It is therefore clear that even on that small, narrow point, justice demands that there must be some amendment to the Bill.
There is real cause for concern. Some district councils have decided on increased fees in accordance with the 1976 Act, and some of them have done this in a most arbitrary way. Some councils have not even enabled the taxi trade to obtain information to allow them to decide whether or not to put in an objection. For example, a large increase in the licence fee was proposed by one district council and was eventually implemented. When the taxi trade association requested a breakdown of the costings of the licensing department to decide whether or not to make an objection, their request was refused. I have with me tonight a copy of a letter from that council which says that it had been decided not to furnish the required information. Surely that is against all reasonable practice. It makes a mockery of any opportunity to object and even of consultation. I am assured that a similar attitude is experienced in other areas.
The amendment proposes that the licensing fee outside the Metropolitan area shall not exceed £25 or such other sum as the district council may decide. Should a district council decide to vary the sum, it is proposed that there must in all cases be an opportunity to appeal. This would apply to all councils whether or not they operate under the 1976 Act or the 1847 Act. It is proposed in the amendment that the right of appeal should be to the Traffic Commissioners, as I do not have the slightest doubt that the Secretary of State will not wish to have this additional responsibility placed upon him. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will see the equity of the arrangement that is proposed in the amendment, but if the Minister considers that another body of appeal might be more appropriate, that would be acceptable, provided it was an independent body.
In short, the amendment seeks an opportunity to appeal to an independent body in the case of councils operating under the 1976 Act; and that the same opportunity be given where the council still operates under the 1847 Act. I would remind your Lordships that under the clause as drafted, in the case of those district councils operating under the 1847 Act there will be no appeal at all—not even a limited appeal to the district council as under the 1976 Act. On the grounds of equity this matter does deserve consideration and I beg to move.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: This amendment and the clause to which it relates should be seen in the context of the Government's firm conviction that the level of public spending and the burden on the taxpayer and the rate
414
payer should be reduced. One way of putting that policy into action is to ensure that local authorities are not prevented from charging sufficient fees to at least cover the cost of the services they provide. For this purpose, however, it is not enough merely to sweep away long out-dated maxima, such as the five shilling maximum for a taxi licence under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. We must go further than that and remove all unnecessary restrictions on the powers of local authorities to charge such fees as may be necessary.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would take us in the other direction. The noble Lord proposes a complicated procedure of public notification and the consideration of objections whenever a district council covered by this Bill wishes to set a fee of more than £25. This procedure would, by its very nature, take longer and be more costly. The losers would be the taxi trade, who would have to bear this extra cost. Even if this were not the case, inflexible statutory requirements such as those proposed by the noble Lord would be wholly inappropriate. District councils can hardly fail to inform the taxi trade of proposed increases in licence fees, and if the trade is aggrieved it will, I am sure, have no hesitation and no difficulty in making its feelings abundantly clear. I appreciate that the procedural proposals which I have just criticised already appear in Section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. I can see that the threshold of £25 could be defended in 1976, since the cost of taxi licensing was unlikely to exceed that sum. The same is no longer true today.
I now turn to that part of the noble Lord's amendment that would provide for arbitration by the Traffic Commissioners. I appreciate that the noble Lord has the interests of the taxi trade at heart and I sympathise with his objectives. None of us likes paying extra for anything, and the prospect of providential intervention is always appealing. I am therefore sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I hope that when he has heard the many reasons—some important, some less so—he will be persuaded as I have been that the amendment should be withdrawn.
I have already said that the ability of local authorities to charge fees to cover their costs should not be artificially restricted. Arbitration by the Traffic Commissioners would do just that, and even if this were not the case the noble Lord's proposal would have serious resource implications. It would increase the burden of work upon the Traffic Commissioners, not to mention their costs. Noble Lords will notice that the amendment makes no mention of who is to bear the cost of arbitration. The intention would appear to be that the costs should be borne by the long-suffering taxpayer.
This proposal would also mark a new departure in taxi policy. There are many provisions in taxi legislation for a right of appeal to the courts, but nowhere do the Traffic Commissioners appear. To introduce them into the taxi field solely for the purpose of arbitrating on taxi licence fees would be a strange anomaly indeed. Furthermore, to do so at this stage, shortly before my right honourable friend the Home Secretary issues his consultation paper on taxis and hire cars, would be to jump the gun. This is neither the time nor the place for that.

415
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has expressed anxieties that the Bill as drafted would enable local authorities to charge fees greater than they need to recover their costs, in other words to make a profit. I wish to make it quite clear that this is not the intention. The discretion to fix fees without regard to any arbitrary ceiling does not allow a fee to be fixed at a level greater than the reasonable cost of administering the system, taking one year with another. A local authority fixing a fee at such a level could in my view be challenged in the courts on the grounds that it was acting ultra vires.
Nevertheless, I do not wish to discount the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and of the taxi trade. Therefore, if it will satisfy the noble Lord, I will undertake to look again at the clause with a view to making explicit what I believe to be already implicit, namely, that excessive fees shall not be charged. I will also read carefully what the noble Lord has said and the great concern which he expressed about appealing to an independent body. He seemed to feel that that was of major importance and I will certainly be glad to think again about that. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to proceed with his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I should like to make just a few points on what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said. First, I must make it absolutely clear that the amendment is not saying that there should not be the exercise of due economy; it is not saying that there should be no attention given to the saving of finance. That has nothing at all to do with what I have said. It is not even saying that there should not be an increase in licence fees. Obviously with the pitifully low fee that is charged in the areas operating under the 1847 Act there is need for something to be done.
I appreciate that the Minister has said that he is prepared to look at the question of limiting the increases: that would go a long way because at the moment there is nothing in the Act at all which stops that. In London, of course, there has to be approval by the Secretary of State and therefore we are not dealing with London. We are quite satisfied that the Secretary of State will watch the position there, but outside London we have this problem. We are not even saying that the £25 which is mentioned in the amendment should be the figure. It says £25 or such other fee as the district council may decide. Therefore that is all right.
The Minister also said that there is no intention under the Bill that the council shall fix a fee above the cost of the department. That has been the worry reported to me by the taxi trade. If they cannot get the information as to the costs of the licensing department, and know whether it covers costs that they should not be trying to get from the taxi trade, how can they decide whether to make an objection? And the objection is that going to the very body which refuses them the information surely is undemocratic and inequitable, and that alone should be looked at.
The other important point is that even if we said "All right, leave it as it is in the 1977 Act—the objection only to the district council" that does not apply in the case of those operating under the 1847 Act.
416
They have no grounds for protest at all because there is no provision in the clause for that. Therefore, there are still grounds for looking into this matter. It is rather strange that I should be in the position, first, of supporting fair and equitable taxation in the case of commercial enterprises with their haulage and now I am supporting proper and fair treatment for the commercial enterprise of the taxi trade. Therefore, this side of the Committee seems to be doing its job effectively tonight.
I will read what the Minister has said. I appreciate that he will look at one or two points but I shall be grateful if he will look at the whole of this case because I think there is a sound reason for one or two changes to be made. On the basis of what the Minister has said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Revision of Highway Code
. Section 37 of the 1972 Act shall be read and have effect as if in subsection (2) thereof after the word "may" there were inserted the words "after consulting such persons and organisations as he thinks fit".").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I can take with this also Amendment No. 99. This question is dealt with by Section 37 of the 1972 Road Traffic Act and it relates to the Highway Code. At present the Secretary of State may make alterations to the code, but any such revised code must not be issued until any proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. This necessitates the allocation of parliamentary time and this may explain why sometimes there is some gap between the issuing of one code and a revised one later on.
The first amendment seeks to provide that the Secretary of State shall consult such persons and organisations as he thinks fit before making any revision. I hope the Government will not resist this amendment, because they are almost the same words as the Government have insisted shall be retained in the schedule relating to the road humps. Therefore, I am not trying to do anything new; I am trying to put into this one the same words as they have said must be left and not interfered with in the schedule for road humps.
The second amendment proposes what in effect is the negative procedure. Parliament will have the opportunity under the amendment to decide that the alteration be not made, but unless any Member seeks to propose a resolution within a period of 40 days the alterations will be made and the revised code issued. These two amendments are put forward, particularly the second one, with the intention of being really helpful. Time and time again I have insisted on certain matters being subject to affirmative resolution, but, in this case, the Highway Code is not making law; it is setting out guidance for the benefit of the public. To get a revised code as regularly as is desirable is something we surely ought to aim at. I believe that both the AA and the RAC would support this. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this amendment, to which I have put my name. It is a pity that the two amendments to which I have put my name have both come up at this unfortunate late hour. The first one, which we dealt with the other day, we shall no doubt come back to at a later date. I think this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, can do nothing but be helpful to both Houses of Parliament, with regard to the time aspect, as well as to the Government getting other legislation through in the time in which they wish to. I support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in this amendment.
Lord de Clifford: May I support these amendments. I will not add anything to what has been said about them, but I should like to ask the Government, when they come to revise the Highway Code, that they shall not make it bigger and bigger. At the moment it is starting to get so large that people who have to learn it and use it, particularly those who are just starting to drive, tend to find great difficulty in getting through the volume of it. It would be much better if we could try to condense it.
The Earl of Avon: I noticed the wording to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, drew my attention, and thought it must be a point he carefully put down to get the sympathy of the Government, which indeed he has on this, and we very much appreciate what he has put before us. I am grateful for this opportunity to explain the Government's position on the whole question of the procedure for revising the Highway Code.
First, on the question of consultation, which is the subject of the new Clause 98, it is of course the case that successive Governments have made a practice of consulting widely among those who can best offer advice on the revision of the code. Indeed, on the occasion of the last revision, the draft revised code was published in the form of a Green Paper. This served two purposes. It gave both Houses of Parliament an opportunity to debate the revised code, and it provided the general public with an opportunity to offer comments and observations. It is, of course, extremely unlikely that any future Secretary of State would fail to recognise the importance of seeking the views of all interested organisations and of the public before revising the code, irrespective of whether there was a statutory duty for him to do so. I think, too, that he would seek an opportunity for parliamentary debate on any changes of substance.
I turn to the second amendment, Amendment No. 99. This would change the procedure for laying a revised version of the code from the affirmative to the negative resolution procedure and, as the noble Lord knows, that is something that I am always in favour of. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, the purpose behind this is to enable revision of the code to be made in a less cumbrous and time-consuming way. This is all very well as far as it goes, but there are other, perhaps more important, changes in the procedure which we might envisage to enable the code to be kept up-to-date more easily without having to wait until a general revision of the code. For example, it might be sensible for the kind of editorial
418
changes which merely reflect changes in legal requirements which have already been enacted by Parliament, or clarified by developing case law, to be incorporated by the Government when the code is reprinted, without the need for separate parliamentary approval. From time to time Parliament could then address itself to a more substantial revision. A change of that kind might ensure that Parliament's legitimate interest in the drafting of this important document is protected while avoiding unnecessary procedural delays.
The Government are looking at this whole problem and will make firm proposals as soon as possible. This is not, I suggest, an urgent task, because, as noble Lords will recall, the last revision of the code was fairly recent and the next major one we would imagine is some way off. So we totally accept in principle that there should be consultation about the revision of the Highway Code and that it is desirable that it should be made easier to keep the code up to date between major revisions, but the Government would like to put forward their considered proposals at a later date taking on board the points made in this useful discussion this evening, including the point raised by my noble friend Lord de Clifford. Therefore, in point of fact, to sum up, in the first case in practice, and in the second case in thought, we are almost a step ahead of the amendments which the noble Lord has moved this evening. I hope, bearing that in mind, that he might be prepared to withdraw them.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation and naturally, if the Government are going to give attention to this whole question and maybe even improve upon my amendment, I welcome it, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
10.28 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight haulage by inland waterway
.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it would be in the interests of any locality or of all or some of its inhabitants for facilities to be provided in that locality or elsewhere for or in connection with the carriage of freight by inland waterway or the loading or unloading of freight carried or intended to be carried by inland waterway, he may make grants in accordance with this section towards the provision of such facilities.
(2) Grants under this section shall be made towards capital expenditure which is to be incurred in providing such facilities, and the facilities may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, include cargo carrying craft, inland waterway terminals, depots, access roads and equipment for use in connection with the carriage, loading or unloading of freight.
(3) Grants under this section shall be made in pursuance of an application made to the Secretary of State by the person who intends to provide the facilities and shall be supported by evidence that the Navigation Authority have given that person their approval for the provision by him of the facilities to which the application relates.
(4) The Secretary of State may, in making a grant under this section, impose such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the wide support of the names at the head

419
of this amendment. Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 provides that grants may be made to cover 50 per cent. of the capital cost of the provision of facilities for handling freight. They cover items such as sidings, handling equipment, access roads and rolling stock. The grants are made to the body which will be providing the facilities, and grants have been made of immeasurable value both to the handler of the freight and to British Rail. I know that the Government are anxious to see the commercial waterways fully developed and only recently your Lordships approved a Bill to increase the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board.
This amendment seeks to provide that the same Section 8 grants as are now available in connection with freight facilities as regards rail shall be made to those using the commercial waterways for the carriage of freight. Perhaps I may mention one example, the improvement to the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation for which the Government made finance available. The development of the traffic on this waterway will require investment in wharves, craft and handling equipment, and firms interested in developing freight traffic on this waterway have made inquiries already about the possibility of grants being made available.
The amendment is fully supported by the National Waterways Transport Association, and one private haulage and warehousing firm has urged support for the amendment and has explained that, where proposed transhipment facilities were adjacent to the railway, it was possible for them to obtain grants towards establishing the necessary facilities, but where they are adjacent to the waterway, such grants were not available. This will not involve a considerable sum of money, and it will possibly enable our freight waterways to be developed to the fullest extent and to provide facilities for those who are involved in transporting freight. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like very warmly to support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to congratulate him on the magnificent work that he has achieved in the long stage of this Committee, where he has moved about 80 out of 100 or so amendments, only equalled by my noble friend's replies. But this amendment asks this question of the Government: do they really believe in the waterways? Do they really believe in the network that we have? Do they really believe in a way of removing five lorries from our roads and replacing them with one barge, or which will help take some of these juggernauts off our roads?
As the noble Lord has said, this amendment is supported by responsible bodies outside this House. It does not demand a large annual sum; it leaves the annual sum to the Government. But in my view it would bring in parallel sums and, indeed, would give the Waterways Board a great fillip if it was thought that it was being handled or dealt with in the same way as the railways. I hope that my noble friend can give an encouraging reply.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like most warmly to support this amendment. Our waterways traverse most of the country. The majority of them
420
were constructed in the 18th century, with a few in the early 19th century. There has been some improvement in tourist services on the waterways, but the freight services have been rather neglected. Of course, it is an extremely cheap way of transporting heavy goods. It is not very fast, but it is a useful form of transportation.
Some of the canals are in rather a bad way, and although my next remark may not be strictly relevant to the amendment, I have often thought that through the medium of a Government agency some of our young unemployed might be employed, at the correct wage, to improve our waterways, to dredge some of them and to make them navigable. I support this amendment. To a great extent these waterways are a wasted asset in relation to the movement of freight.
Viscount Hanworth: I should like to support this amendment, and to say that it seems perfectly logical that these waterways should be put on the same footing as the railways. I can quite understand the Government's reluctance to agree to this because of the matter of finance. On the other hand, the grants are discretionary and it would do a very great deal to promote this use of our canals and rivers for increased load-carrying.
Lord Bellwin: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and other noble friends and noble Lords who have spoken, that the Government have considerable sympathy with the views that have been put forward, but the fact is that the clause is outside the scope of the Bill. It would not be appropriate to take up the time of the Committee on this occasion to debate the arrangements for the transportation of freight by water. I can, however, say that the Government are aware of the desire of those responsible for our canal system to increase this freight traffic as much as they can. This is a general objective with which the Government are in sympathy.
We have been considering for some time the possible extension of the rail freight facilities grant to waterways and the Armitage Report recommended that canals should be eligible for these grants. The Government are considering the Armitage recommendations as a whole. I am sure that your Lordships are aware that there has been a general desire that the recommendations should be looked at as a package, and that the Government should not proceed with individual recommendations in isolation. That in fact is what we are doing. I ask your Lordships to please be patient while we come to decisions on that. Meanwhile, I have to say again that, in that I am advised that the clause is outside the scope of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful for the advice given by the Minister. What I shall have to consider with my noble friends is whether or not to put down a similar amendment and also extend the Title of the Bill, as we have already done on one occasion tonight in so far as we have brought in the railways and compensation in connection with the burning of crops which had nothing to do with this original Bill, but the Title is going to be extended. This is such a commonsense transport

421
issue, the Government have so much sympathy for it, that I shall help the Government by putting down an amendment and also extending the Title. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Railway etc. byelaws: increase in penalties
. In section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 (Byelaws for railways and railway shipping services) for subsection (3) there is substituted the following subsection—
(3) Any byelaws made under this section may provide—

(a) in the case of byelaws made by virtue of subsection (1) above, that any person contravening them shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £200 for each offence; and

(b) in the case of byelaws made by virtue of subsection (2) above, that any person contravening them shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 for each offence and, in the case of such a contravention which continues after conviction, to a fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which the offence so continues.".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. This clause, although it may be a little difficult to understand at first reading, is really extremely simple. All it does is to raise the maximum penalty which a court can award on summary conviction for breach of the railway by-laws from £50 to £200, which is in accordance with today's thinking as the appropriate level. Further, when this point was raised in another place during the Committee stage the Government made it clear that they had great sympathy for this proposal. I therefore hope that it will not be thought necessary for me to explain it all at great length. If I had not seen a nod, I might have thought it was necessary.
I would only say one point about this in addition. These penalties for breaches of by-laws have a rather curious history. The 1962 Act, from which we start, is a public Act of Parliament. The 1975 and 1977 Acts, which lifted the maximum penalty from £25 to £50, were private Acts of Parliament. Beyond that there are two sorts of by-laws, one dealing with the railways and the other dealing with Sealink. Sealink in fact has never had any by-laws, but none the less it is felt that the power to make by-laws should be retained. That is why we have two paragraphs in this new clause. The following amendment, No. 103, is no more than consequential repeals which are consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: It is a great pleasure always, not one I get too often, to be able to accept the amendment, which I hereby gladly do. The nod was as good as a wink on this occasion, and I am pleased to thank my noble friend for moving this amendment, which we accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Repeals]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 86, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment to remove a piece of duplication in the repeals schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 89, line 45, at end insert—

("1975 c. xxix.

The British Railways (No. 2) Act 1975.

Section 21.

1977 c. xii.

The London Transport Act 1977.

Section 13(1).

1977 c. xvii.

The British Railways Act 1977.

Section 14(1).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 104:
Line 14, after second ("licences;") insert ("to amend the law relating to the liability of railway companies to make good damage to crops by their engines;").
The noble Lord said: In view of my noble friends' earlier assurance, I need not speak to this amendment at length now. However, perhaps well before 8th July, when we will come to this matter again on Report, my noble friend will let me have the Government's views on the suggestions contained in my amendment, so that I may give proper consideration to the matter and so avoid the possible worry of putting down an amendment on Third Reading, something which we both wish to avoid.
Lord Skelmersdale: I never like amendments, and most certainly I shall do as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Employment and Training Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  MAINTAINED SCHOOLS: CLOSURE GUIDELINES
  MAINTAINED SCHOOLS: CLOSURE GUIDELINES
  SCHOOL CLOSURES: POLICY
  SCHOOL CLOSURES: POLICY
  SCHOOL DAMAGE EXPENDITURE
  SCHOOL DAMAGE EXPENDITURE
  GRENADA: SALE OF NAVAL EQUIPMENT
  GRENADA: SALE OF NAVAL EQUIPMENT
  RACE RELATIONS ACT: GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
  RACE RELATIONS ACT: GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  CATEGORY "A" PRISONERS
  CATEGORY "A" PRISONERS