Sitting of 16 March 1981

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

    Disabled Persons (Air Travel)
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Trade, in view of the fact that 1981 is the International Year of Disabled People, if he will take steps with British airports and British airlines, respectively, to improve facilities for air travel by disabled pepole, especially those confined to wheelchairs.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): The provision of facilities for disabled air travellers is a matter for the airports and airlines concerned, and a good dealhas been, and is being, done to improve the lot of the handicapped when they travel by air. Airport and airline representatives have participated in the meetings reviewing the special meeds of disabled passengers held under the auspices of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the last Minister for Social Security. We encouraged the widest possible airport and airline representation at last Thursday's conference on "Transport without Handicap".
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have just prayed for the tranquility of the Realm? Is he further aware that the difference between what the airlines say is available to disabled passengers and what actually happens is vast and intranquil?
    Mr. Eyre: I, of course, take careful note of my hon. Friend's point. My information is that the British Airports Authority has improved the facilities available, and it is known that further improvements will be made in 1981. Similarly, the airlines' organisation has produced for its airlines a new set of standard procedures for the medical clearance and sympathetic handling of disabled passengers.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister give a lot more support to the "Access to the Skies" campaign for the disabled to help give it real teeth? Will he make sure that the fourth terminal at Heathrow airport and the third London airport will provide for such a success from the beginning?
    Mr. Eyre: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall encourage the relevant authorities and the airlines to do everything they can to be helpful in these directions.

    Imports-Exports
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the current levels of imports and exports; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Biffen): Our current trade position is strong. This reflects in no small way the fine achievements of our exporters.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the corporate public wailing of the CBI seems to be in marked contrast to the privately expressed views of many of its members, huge numbers of whom are importers of raw materials and who find great benefit in a strong pound? Is it not strange, since the Labour Party won the 1964 election on the basis of wailing comments about an £800 million deficit, that we never hear anything from it about the position in January when our balance of payments surplus was, I think, £957 million?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the Labour Party will use this question as the occasion to join my hon. Friend in congratulating our exporters on their magnificent performance.
    My hon. Friend referred to the strong pound. It undoubtedly has advantages for the purchase of raw materials, but it would be wise to bear in mind that it has an impact on export performance generally.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is there any sound economic reason for our seeking now to increase further the surplus on our balance of trade?
    Mr. Biffen: I would not have thought so.
    Mr. Neubert: Can my right hon. Friend offer a prospect of action on the problem of the importation of cut-price pianos which have been brought in from East Germany and Poland at commercially unreal prices in an attempt, presumably, to earn hard currency in the West?
    Mr. Biffen: I believe that the matter is now before the European Community.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that exporters deserve congratulation, not only on their achievements, but because they are battling against the Government's economic policy and the over-valued pound? Will he say clearly whether the Government want the pound to stay at its present level, or do they agree that it is over valued?
    Mr. Biffen: The whole point of having a freely floating pound is that it shall be freely floating, and not subject to the oppressive value judgments of politicians. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the pound, relative to the dollar, has fallen by 9 per cent. since October 1980, and relative to the basket of currencies by 3½ per cent. during the past month.

    South Africa
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will reconsider existing trade arrangements with South Africa.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): No, Sir. I have no reason to think that existing arrangements are inadequate.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the obstinate refusal of the South African Government to implement the United Nations plan in Namibia, will the Minister impose sanctions against South Africa? As the Nigerian President, who is visiting Britain this week, is calling for an oil embargo against South Africa, will the Government reconsider the deplorable decision to grant shares in North Sea oil licences to Unilon, which is a South African company, and to Charter Consolidated, which has South African connections?
    Mr. Parkinson: The Government take the view that dialogue and contact are the most constructive bases for our relations with South Africa. They are far to be preferred to ostracism and isolation. We work on exactly the same principles in our dealings with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend recall that the former President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), said that it was important that we increased our trade with South Africa,
    4
    and that if we stopped trading with people with whose policies we disagreed we would soon be bankrupt? Is not what the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said yet another example of the double standards of the Labour Party in Government as opposed to in Opposition?
    Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. He was right to say that if we applied a political acceptability test to our trade we should have to strike a large number of countries from our trading lists, and a large number of people would be out of work.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister agree that if Unilon is given the right to prospect for oil in the North Sea it will be carrying the hand of friendship a little too far?
    Mr. Parkinson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who will explain the basis on which the licences are allocated.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that reply. Is he aware that he could have said that it was a matter for the EEC? Does he understand that such replies are irritating and that he should say what the EEC is doing about these matters?
    Mr. Parkinson: I content myself with thanking my hon. Friend for his opening remark.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Minister confirm or deny the allegation made by "Anti-apartheid" that British owned and operated tankers, with the connivance of the British Government, have been playing a central role in secret international deals to breach the OPEC embargo on oil supplies to South Africa?
    Mr. Parkinson: If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question on that subject, I shall endeavour to answer it.

    Collusive Tendering
    Mr. Beaumont-Darkasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has yet concluded consideration of whether collusive tendering should be made a criminal offence.
    The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): I am still considering the many useful representations received. Views were sharply divided on the desirability of creating a new criminal offence, and I am weighing these arguments carefully before coming to a decision.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend think that the consultations and considerations that have been taking place since July have continued long enough, and that we should make up our minds whether collusive tendering, which is an evil, is to be legislated against, or whether extra powers should be given to the Office of Fair Trading to stamp out the offence for fair-minded business people and local authorities?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I agree that major competition issues are involved in collusive tendering. As with other restrictive agreements, it is subject to registration under the restrictive trades practices legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, collusive tendering is especially deceptive and difficult to detect. It is difficult to find concrete

    5
    evidence. That is why my Department issued a Green Paper on the subject. One of the problems confirmed in the response to the Green Paper concerns the practicalities of enforcement. It has been pointed out that the existing law on fraud may suffice in clear-cut cases. The matter deserves urgent and diligent consideration.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware that simply because something is difficult to detect it is not a reason for not making it a crime? As the Liesner committee reported on the matter two years ago, and as collusive tendering amounts to little more than a conspiracy to defraud public authorities and ratepayers, should not the practice be made a crime immediately?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: If something is difficult to detect it is usually equally difficult to enforce. Laws that are impossible to enforce are not likely to have a deterrent effect on those who break them. As collusive tendering could be a fraudulent practice—and, in some cases, is so—the law on fraud may suffice. I want to examine the representations. I consider it to be an important competition issue. I shall reach my decision on the basis of all representations.

    Credit Purchases
    Mr. Soleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the practice known as red-lining by which companies refuse to provide credit for purchases to all consumers living within a particular area.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Red-lining is not, to the best of my knowledge, widespread. The Director General is, however, compiling information about credit scoring generally. If the hon. Gentleman has any information on red-lining, I am sure that it would interest the Director General.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept that in my constituency recently the whole of the White City estate was red-lined by one company until a local newspaper, The Shepherds Bush Gazette, took up the matter? The practice is taking place both there and in other places. Will the Minister take a tougher line on it?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I have just overheard an hon. Member asking what red-lining means. I confess that until a recent National Consumer Council report brought the problem to my attention I thought that red-lining was a local Labour Party practice ruling out certain party candidates lacking the requisite qualifications. As a result of the report, I am aware that red-lining is a valid consumer problem. I hope that all decisions about whether to provide credit are based on sound commercial judgment and that, in principle, a person's creditworthiness is determined only on his or her merits.
    It has been claimed that debt collecting can be especially hazardous in areas where there is persistent violence. However, that does not rule out the consideration that the practice is unfair to the individual consumer.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Government do not have any red-linings to offer, what about some silver-linings? Is the Minister aware that during the past few days people in Bolsover and other constituencies in the North—and I
    6
    suppose in the South also now—have been playing merry hell because they have not seen any silver-linings since the Government were elected 23 months ago?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and his supporters would prefer that every cloud should have a red-lining.

    Japan-United Kingdom Trade
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made in reducing the imbalance of trade between Japan and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Biffen: The imbalance of trade between Japan and the United Kingdom continues to widen and is a matter for serious concern. The European Community as a whole has a large and growing deficit in its trade with Japan. The Government fully support the course of action recently agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council to reduce that imbalance.
    Mr. Morris: In view of the widening imbalance, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that two bearing companies in Northampton—namely, Ransome Hoffmann Pollard and British Timken—are due, respectively, to close and to shed 300 jobs? Does he accept that there are two reasons for the closure and the loss of 300 jobs—first, the downturn in the motor industry and, secondly, and more importantly, the unfair trading practices of the Japanese? When will my right hon. Friend say that these trading practices are unacceptable and that the United Kingdom, alongside the EEC, will do something about them?
    Mr. Biffen: That will be when the evidence is such as to convince the anti-dumping unit, and through that unit the agencies within the EEC that are sovereign in these matters.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: In technology Japan appears to be passing through a phase of superiority in comparison with Western Europe, including the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that exports to Japan from this country and Japanese imports must be considered seriously by the Government? Is he aware that while the Japanese are imposing restrictive practices on the United Kingdom's imports it seems that we are prepared to open our doors to let in their goods, including their motor cars?
    Mr. Biffen: We are always anxious to receive evidence from any quarter that will substantiate the hon. Gentleman's generalised comments. It ill-becomes the United Kingdom to initiate a trade restriction policy when 29 per cent. of our domestic product is represented by exports, whereas for Japan the figure is only 12 per cent.
    Mr. Marlow: As we import from Japan two and a half times as many manufactures as we export to Japan, why do we not investigate those areas where Japanese imports are causing, on balance, harm to the British economy and keep them out, in the same way as the Italians do with Japanese cars?
    Mr. Biffen: These matters are kept under constant review. It would be foolish for a country that, broadly speaking, has a direct concern in the promotion of open trade fortuitously to engage in trade restriction. If my hon. Friend can advance cogent and compelling arguments, we shall be happy to receive them.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Is not one of the reasons for the imbalance that Japan is well ahead in consumer electronics technology? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues with a view to ensuring that British companies invest in advanced technology in this sector in Britain so that we do not have to import from Japan?
    Mr. Biffen: It would be unwise for the United Kingdom Government to take a hostile attitude to Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that, for example, the Nissan investment can be turned aside, let him say so. If he is inviting the Government to engage in a pick-and-choose operation, the consequences of such an operation would be extremely harmful.

    Garage Servicing
    Sir Frederick Burdenasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading what reaction he has had from the Motor Agents Association in relation to the approaches he has made to it following the Consumers Association's report on garage servicing.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 22 January I regard this as a valuable report which, I feel sure, reflects the experience and great concern of a number of motorists. I hope that the trade will take steps to strengthen its code of practice and to enforce it more effectively as the Consumers Association recommends. The Director General has for some time been discussing with the relevant trade associations proposals for strengthening the code of practice.
    Sir Frederick Burden: Will my right hon. Friend take a considerable interest in this issue? Will she do her best to ensure that effective regulations are introduced by the motor manufacturers? Is she aware that there is undoubtedly grave concern among many members of the public over the way in which they are being taken for a rotten ride by some repair units in the motor industry?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was especially disappointed that the MAA's published reaction to the CA report was not more constructive. I hope that acceptance by it of the many criticisms in the CA report will be reflected in a strengthened code of practice that is currently being negotiated and that such a code will be widely observed. If it is not, we shall have to consider what alternatives might be applicable.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: As a result of the proposals in the Budget the Government have hit motorists by increasing the price of a gallon of petrol by 20p and by increasing the road fund licence. Will they now take some action to defend the motorist? Why did not the Government come forward with some definite proposals following a good report?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: The question concerns garage servicing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table an appropriate question, I shall be pleased to answer it.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Motor Agents Association has absolutely no concern for anything outside the narrow self-interests of its own membership and that it regards the public as a golden goose to be alternately plucked and stuffed?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend has expressed a characteristically robust view. I fear that it is a view that is shared by all too many members of the public as a result of their experience. That is why I have said that I hope that there will be a strengthened code of practice negotiated. I hope that it will be widely observed. I repeat, if it is not we shall have to consider what alternatives might be appropriate.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we look forward to the time when she will be no longer a spectator but an intervener in these matters? Bearing in mind the enormous amount of evidence of abuse by garages when engaging in sales and servicing, is not there a case for giving statutory force to a code of conduct and eventually disqualifying those who repeatedly rook the consumer?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that at a time when the Director General of Fair Trading is conducting negotiations with those in the motor trade on this issue it would be premature for me to make a more definite observation than the fairly definite one that I have already made.
    Mr. Fraser: May I advise the right hon. Lady that there is nothing like a mention of action on her part to make the negotiations easier and not more difficult?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Surely that is precisely what I have done.

    Davy-Loewy (Bid)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will refer the bid of the American corporation Enserch for the British firm of Davy-Loewy to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Biffen: I referred this proposed merger to the commission on 3 March.
    Mr. Hooley: That answer is useful as far as it goes. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objective of the American corporation is to gain control of certain chemical processes of Davy-Loewy involved in energy production, and that, having obtained it, it is as likely as not to shut down the steel plate making capacity of Davy-Loewy, which would be a disaster for Britain? Will he have close consultations with the Secretary of State for Industry about the implications of the takeover?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the takeover. I wish to say nothing that might imply that I have prejudged the studies now being undertaken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this famous Sheffield company is the only firm in Britain that makes entire steel mills for export? If a competitor took over the firm, changed the nature of it and closed it, does he understand that it would be a disaster for not only Sheffield—which is taking a keen interest in the proposed takeover—but for British industry generally? Even if the commission gives an unsatisfactory answer, will he do something to try to preserve this firm?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the Fair Trading Act 1973, especially section 84,

    9
    which places before the commission a series of criteria which cover the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It will be better to wait until it has reported.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his replies will not give much encouragement to the management and work force at Davy-Loewy who are looking to him to protect their interests and the national interest? Does he accept that it would be a national disaster if the entire British steel industry became dependent on overseas producers for its metallurgical plant?
    Mr. Biffen: It would not serve public policy in its widest sense if I gave the impression that I had made up my mind independently of whatever might be concluded by the commission.

    Council of Trade Ministers
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Trade what particular benefits he hopes to achieve from the United Kingdom Presidency of the EEC Council of Trade Ministers.
    Mr. Biffen: It is too early to go into details of specific objectives, but I will have the interests of British trade and commerce well in mind when pursuing the Government's general objective of contributing to the development of practical and constructive policies in the Community.
    Mr. Carlisle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do his best to make progress to enable our successful insurance industry to compete on equal terms on the Continent? Although trade has to be fair for our visible trade, is he aware that that is still not so for invisible trade?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the development of the European Community in respect of insurance, in sympathy with the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, would be widely welcomed in this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Hardy: Can we expect British trading interests to be more greatly protected than they appear to be? Last year we imported 169,870 electric dry irons from East Germany at a United Kingdom landed price of £1·70. How many jobs in British manufacturing and in the British steel industry does that sort of unfair competition sacrifice?
    Mr. Biffen: That point relates to the external trade policies of the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw the attention of the anti-dumping unit of the British Government to that phenomenon, we shall consider it.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend be careful to ensure that the European Community does not restrict imports too much from the under-developed world, because to take the manufactures of those countries is better than to give them aid?
    Mr. Biffen: As a broad proposition, one would wish to see a liberal trading Community rather than a protectionist Community. The operation of the common agricultural policy shows us the dangers of being protectionist. However, there are a number of industries, of which textiles is one, where we want to balance many interests in the conclusion of policy.
    Mr. John Smith: What is the Government's objective in the negotiations between the EEC and the United States for the protection of British textiles from unfair American competion based on cheap energy? Is he aware that he has placed a great deal of reliance on EEC action to protect the British industry? What action does he want it to take?
    Mr. Biffen: We support the representations made by the European Community, through the Commission, to the United States Government with a view to securing action in respect of natural gas. However, we shall have to see how those negotiations proceed. I remind the right hon. Gentleman—and it should be well understood in the Chamber—that, at the end of the day, we are not sovereign in these matters.

    Flags of Convenience
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he proposes to raise the issue of flags of convenience at the next meeting of EEC Transport Ministers.
    Mr. Eyre: Open registries were discussed at the last European Community Transport Council in November at the instance of the Federal Republic of Germany. They will now be considered further by the Council transport working group.
    Mr. Davis: What action are the British Government proposing to take? Is the Minister aware that the Liberian shipowners' council is soliciting allies to resist the attack on flags of convenience? Is he prepared to form part of such a dubious alliance? Will he support the initiative taken by the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries in the EEC to prevent that attack on British and other shipping and the importation of the dubious standards which are employed by the flags of convenience?
    Mr. Eyre: The need in UNCTAD is that any analysis of flags of convenience should be realistic and impartial, with an emphasis on economic realities rather than political preconception. Any abuses—if they exist—should be considered with a view to their elimination. The work of the International Maritime Consultative Organisation is valuable in this respect.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: What action is the Minister intending to take to discourage British shipowners from using flags of convenience which often means lowering safety standards as well as all the other conditions of employment? Does he realise what would happen in the seafaring community in this country if he did not take action?
    Mr. Eyre: We are opposed to a number of practices associated with open registries—or flags of convenience, as the hon. Gentleman calls them—and also with some of the practices applying to the traditional registries. We do not consider the existence of open registries to be an issue. What matters are the standards of safety, crewing and manning and all the matters which are connected with good standards in shipping. Those are better enforced by international conventions.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: If more and more British ships are transferred to flags of convenience, what would happen if there were another war and we needed a Merchant Navy? We praised the Merchant Navy during the last war, but now we are completely ignoring it.
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that from 1965 to 1979 the open registry share of the world fleet grew from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent. That process has levelled off in the last three years. More foreign-owned shipping is registered in the United Kingdom than there are United Kingdom-owned ships registered under foreign flags.

    European Community (Visible Trade)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the surplus on visible trade with the European Economic Community in January; and how this compares with the position in January 1980 and January 1979.
    Mr. Parkinson: In January of this year, the United Kingdom had a crude surplus of £369 million on her trade with the Community, compared with crude deficits of £218 million and £20 million in January 1979 and January 1980, respectively.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a remarkable improvement in our trade with the EEC over the last two years? By what percentage has the value of exports to the EEC from Britain increased since we joined the Community in 1973?
    Mr. Parkinson: Our exports to the EEC have grown at an average annual rate of 28 per cent. since we joined the EEC. The figure is 19 per cent. for exports to the rest of the world.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that the Continental EEC would have bought as much oil from the United Kingdom if we had not joined the EEC, and would continue to do so if we withdrew?
    Mr. Parkinson: I could not argue with that proposition. The proportion of our imports of manufactures from the EEC which we cover by our exports has grown substantially from 80 per cent. in 1979 to 88 per cent. in 1980. It is not true that the whole improvement depends on oil.
    Mr. Skinner: What steps will the Minister take to ensure that some of the coal which is currently stocked in the United Kingdom is used to a greater extent inside the Common Market, since we seem to have to spend much of our money on goods from the Common Market while it seems to be importing considerable amounts of coal from Third world countries? Apart from the agreement which the Government are undertaking as a result of the muscle which has been shown by the miners recently, what steps are being taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that more British coal is sold inside the Common Market?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is a strong world-wide demand for coal. A number of Ministers from inside and outside the Common Market have asked me recently about the possibilities of buying British coal. The problem is that the price of British coal is too high. One of the reasons for that is that the British coal industry supports too many unprofitable pits. However, there is no shortage of demand for coal. We have to get the price right.

    Northern Ireland (Airline Security)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Trade why the security arrangements for British airlines flying to and from Northern Ireland are not uniform; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eyre: Our security requirements for British airlines flying between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are uniform. Procedures vary in detail according to local circumstances, but meet a common standard of security.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Were not many of us who "Fly the Flag" to Northern Ireland aghast when, on security grounds, British Airways' crews refused to stay there overnight, unlike the crews of private operators, thus adding to the corporation's deficit? Have those "boys of the bulldog breed" thought better of it?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend knows that there has been a long-standing refusal by aircrew of British Airways to stay overnight in Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the management. It is interesting that British Midland Airways also flies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but its aircrew stay overnight in the Province.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the Minister agree that security arrangements are inconsistent when a woman can take her handbag on to a plane but a small briefcase is not allowed? Is he aware that magazines and newspapers can be taken on board but in some cases small books are not allowed? Will he accept that that does not make sense, and will he comment?
    Mr. Eyre: Arrangements for hand luggage have recently been improved. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the purpose of the security arrangements is to stop dangerous material being taken on to aircraft.

    European Community (Trademarks)
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he supports the European Commission's proposals for harmonising legislation on trademarks and the creation of a Community trademark.
    Mr. Eyre: The Government support the principle of a Community trademark and the need for corresponding alignment of national law. In the long term I am satisfied that the scheme will be helpful to United Kingdom traders who wish to expand their Community trade. The Commission's proposals do, however, raise a number of difficult problems, and they will be the subject of further negotiations.
    Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern of the business community over a number of important points in the proposals? Will he ensure that before accepting the proposals he deals with the questions of inroads into common law rights and international exhaustion and the other significant matters that are troubling the business community?
    Mr. Russell Kerr: And also whether we are going to stay in the Community.
    Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the validity of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I believe that there will be further substantial negotiations. The points that he raises will be borne very much in mind.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: What does the Minister intend to do to try to establish the trademark registry in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Eyre: The Government are firm in their desire to secure the siting of the trademark office in London, and will make specific proposals about a site at a more appropriate date, having regard to the probable length of the negotiations.

    Origin Marking
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any plans to extend the sector covered by the Origin Marking Order (S.I., 1981, No. 121).
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I shall keep the case for extension under review; but my first priority is to implement the order, the principle of which has been widely welcomed, as it stands, before considering the case for bringing in new products or sectors.
    Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the special situation of the clothing industry over origin marking? If it can he shown that the purchaser of an article of clothing has an economic need to know the country where the cloth was made, as well as the country where the article was made up, will she consider extending the order?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I have received a number of representions on the matter, but I fear that it is not practical to extend the order in that way. However, manufacturers, textile weavers and suppliers of cloth are free to supply the information when goods are made up and they often do so.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister recognise the strong feeling, in particular in the wool textile industry, about consumers being misled by labels which, for instance, on a wool suit state "Made in Britain", when, in fact, the cloth is imported? Is it not disgraceful for her to ask the industry to prove that the consumer will benefit from more accurate labelling? Is it not merely an excuse for non-action? Will she reconsider the point about the need for the consumer to know whether he is buying the product of a British worker?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: If not disgraceful, it is remarkable that such criticisms should come from Opposition Members. They are vocal about wishing to extend the order, but their Government took no such steps when in office. I understand the textile industry's case, but it is for the industry to make representations to the manufacturers, most of whom will be pleased to put the label "British made" on textiles.
    Mr. John Fraser: May I congratulate the right hon. Lady on making an order following on negotiations that I started about three years ago? Will she extend origin marking of foreign goods to cutlery and silverware blanks, which are imported from South-East Asia and plated in Sheffield but which are marked "Made in Sheffield" or "Made in England"?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: With due respect, the hon. Gentleman appears to be woefully ignorant of the second order to be made, which refers specifically to cutlery and cutlery blanks. The matter is covered by the amending order. Many cutlery manufactures, including Viners Ltd., already mark on blades, for instance, "Made in Korea".

    Shipping (Provisional Registration)
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will set up an inquiry into the current system of provisional registration for shipping, following the abuses in the case of the "Tiger Bay", which ran aground on a voyage to Riga in the winter of 1980.
    Mr. Eyre: The facility of provisional registration is under examination as part of a general review of the registration provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. It is our intention to introduce new legislation as soon as possible after the review has been completed.
    Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister admit that the 1894 legislation allows registration without inspection or survey? Does not that amount to the "flag-of-convenience" process, albeit under our own flag?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledges that the legislation has applied since 1894. Under the Merchant Shipping Act there is provision for the master to take certain steps if a ship is not seaworthy. We shall bear in mind the case of the "Tiger Bay", but we do not have evidence of widespread abuse.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the past three-quarters of an hour the Department of Trade has set up half a dozen quangos to watch various matters and six committees to take other matters into consideration and that a further half a dozen matters are being put under review? How many more civil servants will all that require?
    Mr. Eyre: The first Merchant Shipping Act was passed in 1894. Instead of criticising us for not doing anything about it, the hon. Gentleman should accuse his right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Minister so ignorant that he does not recognise that there was a substantial change in the law relating to merchant shipping in 1978? Does he accept that the "Tiger Bay" incident illustrates the fact—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) said—that substandard shipping can join the British register, as admitted by his noble Friend Lord Trefgarne? When will the law be changed to ensure that permanent and provisional registration will be conditional upon inspection and survey?
    Mr. Eyre: The changes in 1978 that the hon. Gentleman mentions did not relate to this loophole. I have made it clear that the review will take account of the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).

    Spectacles (Sales)
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now take steps to prohibit restrictive practices in the sale of spectacles.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I understand that the General Optical Council's revised rules on price display have been submitted to the Privy Council for approval. The Director General has decided that these should be given time to prove their effect on competition before reconsidering use of his powers.
    Mr. Lawrence: Since my right hon. Friend believes passionately in competition, can she tell my why it is

    15
    necessary for us to pay £40 for a pair of spectacles when a similar product is on sale in America and elsewhere for only £5? What assurance can she give that the price of spectacle frames will not be kept artificially high and that prospective buyers will be able to go from qualified testers to whichever optician they choose, having compared prices exhibited in shop windows?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: The quick answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that he should buy spectacles in the United States—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I recognise that the problem of competition concerns a number of people. The Government are encouraging opticians to be more open about prices, so that patients can be made more aware of the cost involved and of comparative costs before committing themselves to purchase.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that the optical profession seeks to defend the excess prices charged on spectacles by saying that it is not paid a decent rate for normal optical services? In looking into this matter, will the Minister also consider the entire question as it affects that profession?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I shall certainly bear in mind all aspects of the matter which affect the consumer and which affect questions of competition. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there are a number of aspects of this question which affect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that her original reply to this question is deeply unsatisfactory in that as the Minister allegedly responsible for consumer protection she advised an hon. Member to purchase goods outwith this country, where he might obtain better terms? Is she aware that time after time today, when issues of competition have arisen—on which she says that she places great reliance—it has been clear that the Government are prepared to do very little in practice to back the philosophy of competition that they allegedly espouse?
    Mrs. Oppenheim: British goods will be sold successfully in this country and abroad only when their prices and quality are comparable with those of goods obtainable from abroad. While they are not, clearly consumers will not buy goods manufactured in this country. The whole point of strengthening competition policy, which the Government to a large extent have done, is to ensure that lower prices and higher standards prevail for consumers.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Bilateral Aid
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Lord Privy Seal what was the United Kingdom's bilateral aid to the poorest countries in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; and how this compares in real terms with the previous 12 months.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Net bilateral aid to the poorest countries in the calendar year 1980 is estimated at £288 million, which is about 24 per cent. lower in real terms compared with 1979. But I would emphasise that this does not represent a policy
    16
    decision to cut aid to these countries by 24 per cent. United Kingdom aid is planned on a financial year basis. The pattern of drawings often fluctuates sharply between quarters. Drawings in the first three-quarters of the current financial year by some recipients, notably India, were lower than anticipated. The level of bilateral aid drawings in the calendar year 1980 was low, in contrast to 1979 which was rather high, in relation to resources available.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that a cut of this magnitude from one year to the next may have a disastrous effect on the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world? Is he further aware that such countries, particularly those hit by oil price rises and the world recession, may be driven into deeper economic straits, leading to a political instability which would be in no one's interests?
    Mr. Marten: Yes, I recognise those facts. But, as I said in my answer, this is not a cut.
    Mr. James Johnson: Does the Minister accept that the saddest feature of all this cutting, economy and cheeseparing is in overseas education? The Minister must know as well as I do, because he goes overseas far more than I do, that countries overseas are dying for teachers, particularly teachers of the English language. Is he aware that this hits back at us and at his party because if the English language is losing ground our business men are at a disadvantage in competing against the French and many other nations?
    Mr. Marten: I recognise that, but plenty of teachers are willing to go abroad. The market is there and they go. Overseas countries can employ them if they want to, and they can go there if they want to.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: As the Minister has twice said that this figure does not represent a cut, will he assure the House that in the year ahead the Government will take steps to ensure that the drop will be made up?
    Mr. Marten: We shall do our best to do so, but it is not necessarily the fault of this Government. The receiving Governments are sometimes very slow in taking up what we have offered.

    Commonwealth Development Corporation (Energy Resources)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Lord Privy Seal what commitments the Commonwealth Development Corporation has currently to projects in the field of energy resources.
    Mr. Neil Marten: In 1979 and 1980, taken together, the CDC made commitments of about £37 million to projects in this field.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth Development Corporation has considerable expertise in energy matters and has given considerable help to overseas countries? In the light of this and the problem of oil prices, will he ensure that the resources available to the CDC are expanded and its borrowing powers increased and that there is no question of cutting back on its activities?
    Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have

    17
    discussed exactly that point with Lord Kindersley, the chairman of the CDC. I hope to have an answer on this in the fairly near future.
    Mr. Bowen-Wells: Is the Minister aware that the CDC will be unable to make any commitment, not only in energy but in any other area, unless he manages to convince the Treasury that for the CDC to borrow on the open money markets, and indeed overseas money markets, is not a real charge on the public sector borrowing requirement? What steps has he taken to convince the Treasury of that?
    Mr. Marten: Discussions are still going on. I hope to make an announcement on this as soon as a decision has been reached by Ministers.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received about further aid for Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Neil Marten: We are in close touch with the Zimbabwe Government about all aspects of our aid programme. As regards people in this country, I have received a number of letters urging the provision of further aid to Zimbabwe and a similar number suggesting that we have already done too much.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the urgent need for a multimillion pound development programme in Zimbabwe and the lofty promises made by Britain at the Lancaster House conference, will the Minister increase the miserable offer that the Government have made so far? If the Treasury really is bankrupt, why does he not demand that the oil companies, including BP, hand over to the Zimbabwe Government the millions of pounds in profits that they made by breaking sanctions against the illegal Smith regime?
    Mr. Marten: The latter part of that supplementary question, I am sure, is beyond the scope of this question. On the former part, I simply do not agree with the basis of the question. We have given £75 million in aid, £14 million in training and education, £7 million on ATP. That is a total of £96 million. In addition, there is £22 million forgiveness of debt relief, £33 million of debt has been rescheduled and we are also giving military assistance. That is not a bad record, but it must be up to the rest of the world, as well as ourselves, to help Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Paul Dean: In view of the special difficulties that Zimbabwe faces following the war, and also the great economic prospects, will my hon. Friend think again about this and recognise that it might be wise to be generous now on the principle that prompt aid at this stage will do the most good and bring the best return?
    Mr. Marten: I am very sympathetic to the line taken by my hon. Friend. I think that we must await the results
    18
    of the donors' conference at which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will represent this country.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Minister aware that the Zimbabwe Government reckon that it is in the next three years that the job needs to be done, and that generous aid is therefore needed during those three years in the hope that they can stand on their own feet after that? Will he also confirm that the money for Zimbabwean students in this country has not been included in the figure that he quoted for aid to Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Marten: The figure of £14 million that I quoted is within the money, but we are considering further money. This will, however, have to await the outcome of the donors' conference. On the first part of the question, I agree that aid during the next three years is what is needed. I think that we have done extremely well. I repeat that one should await the outcome of the donors' conference.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the likely level of disbursement of aid to Zimbabwe in the current financial year.
    Mr. Neil Marten: It is too soon to tell precisely how much we shall spend in aid to Zimbabwe in this financial year, but we expect the total to be about £14·5 million.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Will my hon. Friend consider making special funds available in the coming year to enable Zimbabweans currently at school in Britain to continue their education at British universities later this year?
    Mr. Marten: Yes. These matters are under consideration at the moment.
    Mr. McNamara: Does not the Minister agree that the Western world has a great deal at stake in regard to the success of Mr. Mugabe's Government in Zimbabwe? Is not it regrettable that, at this stage, he is not able to give a more positive indication about the extra assistance that is likely to be given by the Government at the donors' conference?
    Mr. Marten: It is customary to announce at the donors' conference, and not beforehand, what aid, if any, one will give.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Motions relating to Town and Country Planning may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and Mr. Speaker shall then put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this resolution does not extend to the making of—

  (a) any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (i) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (ii) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (iii) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (iv) for any relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description; or

  (b) any amendment relating to the surcharge imposed by the National Insurance Surcharge Act 1976 and applying to some only of the persons by or in respect of whom the surcharge is payable.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [Relevant European Community documents: No. 10444/80 and the annual report on the economic situation in the Community (1980) and the economic policy guidelines for 1981.]
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I must inform the House that I already have a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who have indicated that they hope to catch my eye. It will be impossible for them all to be called, although they have a legitimate right to be called. I appeal to hon. Members not to come to the Chair, because, as my predecessor used to say, it would be "counter-productive". That is an extremely effective sanction.
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I am indeed grateful to the Opposition for changing their speakers so that I have a chance of coming to the Dispatch Box this afternoon. For a little while I wondered why they had changed their speakers at the last moment and had decided that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) should appear at the Dispatch Box rather than the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). But having seen his performance on Thursday evening, when he was completely clobbered by my right hon. Friend, I am not in the least surprised that they do not want to risk him again this afternoon.
  Therefore, this gives me a good opportunity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is extremely active this afternoon. He is in very good voice. I hope that he will listen carefully to what I have to say, because it is just possible that he may learn something.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Not from you.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Prior: My right and learned Friend the Chancellor has introduced a very tough Budget at a critical and difficult time for our country. I do not know anyone who realistically expected anything other than a hard Budget this year. Despite the recession, many inflationary tendencies are still in our economy. The pressures of inflation are still present. The level of earnings is still rising considerably faster than the level of prices. There is no doubt that inflationary pressures are still around. Both the level of public spending and money supply testify to this.
  Nor have I seen any informed comment that does not accept that a hard Budget was necessary. Those who ask for a give away—some Labour Members have certainly done so in their speeches—and something to boost consumer demand at a time of deep world recession, are really asking us once more to get on the old treadmill of pricing ourselves out of goods and services, in exports and in import substitution, and to make all the same mistakes that we have made in the past.
  We only have to look back to 1978–79 to see what happens when one seeks to do that. In 1978–79 the PSBR was doubled. A lot more money was pushed, into the economy. The result was that we encouraged a flood of imports, and at that time we had practically no effect on the level of unemployment. Despite all that extra cash that was put into the economy, unemployment fell by 150,000 from its peak. I do not think that anyone, except perhaps a few Labour Members, really believes that that is an answer to our problems. To go down that road again would be to enact the recurrent cancer in the British economy since the war, thus steadily debilitating our capacity to compete even in the boom years. That would be fatal against a background of the worst world recession for half a century.
  Even if the Government were willing to resort to the dangerous expedient of substantial devaluation to try to ease the impact that such reflation would have on our trade it could not work, because oil and energy resources have put a stop to all that.
  So it was bound to be a pretty tough Budget, and tough Budgets are never popular. It was sadly inevitable, too, that a tough Budget at a time of severe recession would be particularly unpopular because everyone—industry, trade unionists, taxpayers and those dependent on State benefits—feels the pinch more at such a time and understandably looks to the Government for help.
  Having said that, and recognising the disappointment, it does not mean that the vast majority of people in our country expected or wanted a reflationary Budget. They did not. They know that necessary changes in our economic and competitive position are taking place and that many hard decisions about the uncompetitive state of much of British industry, which has been building up for years, are now being made.
  I would not necessarily talk about a new realism, although that is what a number of people are calling it. I would say that there are many signs that an old realism is beginning to return. Changes in working practices that have been wanted for years, and that five years ago would have been thought to be totally impossible, are now taking place on the shop floor. There has been a noticeable moderation in pay settlements. Since the early autumn the average pay settlement in private industry has been less than 10 per cent., and in many cases settlements have been much lower than that. Many workers have taken no

  21
  increase in pay at all. In addition, strikes are at a low level. That speaks volumes for the sense and stability of working people.
  In many areas, our unit costs are at last beginning to move in the same direction as those of our main competitors. If we were to relax now—this is the point that I want to get across to Labour Members—and to say that enough is enough and that we have taken our medicine can relax now again, our competitors would run away from us. [Interruption.] If Labour Members do not believe this, they do not have to.
  There are signs at the moment that the recession is beginning to bottom out. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. There are a number of signs from various parts of the country, from the North-West and from the West Midlands and the latest CBI statements—[Interruption.] Do Labour Members not want to see a bottoming out? Do they not accept the evidence that is presented to them? I am very surprised at the attitude they are taking this afternoon.
  I turn to the measures in the Budget which are designed to help industry.
  Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman was just about to cheer us up by giving us the evidence about bottoming out from the recession. Surely he would not want to leave that subject without giving us at least some evidence.
  Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have just said. I said that the evidence from the latest CBI statements and from the North-West and the West Midlands has indicated that the recession is beginning to bottom out. I should have thought that there was other evidence from the longer-term economic indicators in support of that view. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not read it. I am glad to be able to tell him that this afternoon.
  It is significant that nearly all the speeches that have been made by my hon. Friends in the course of the three-day debate have been devoted to the need to help industry in any way that we can. It is right that we should give our top priority to industry and to helping industry in every way.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: If the recession is bottoming out, as the Secretary of State suggests, can he guarantee that when we get next year's Budget the unemployment figures will be significantly lower?
  Mr. Prior: No, I cannot guarantee that. If the hon. Gentleman had a vestige of economic knowledge he would know that there are two factors involved here. First, when the economy recovers, there is bound to be an enormous increase in productivity in this country. Secondly, well after the recession has finished, when we start to climb back into greater production, the numbers of unemployed will continue to rise. I cannot, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman the indications that he would like, any more than he expects to have them. But we shall give top priority to industry. In the clamour of the Budget debate we should not forget what has already been done.
  A number of measures have already been taken to help industry in this Budget and in past weeks. I shall list them, so that hon. Members will begin to realise that we are giving to industry whatever help we are able to give at a very difficult time for the economy.
  22
  The minimum lending rate has fallen by 4 per cent. since November. Our interest rates are falling at a time when the interest rates of nearly every other country are rising. Taken over a period of three months, our interest rates are now lower than those of America, Germany, France and a good many other countries. Since the interest rate is perhaps one of the most important factors in getting production going, and getting the economy going again, we should take credit from the fact that we have been able to reduce the interest rates by 4 per cent. in the space of the past four months.
  Another factor of importance, which to a certain extent—but only a certain extent—is tied to this, is the exchange rate. It is now about 5 per cent. lower that it was at its peak at the end of January. To that extent as well, both those factors are operating now in the right direction and are of help to British industry. Indeed, the CBI estimates that each reduction of 1 per cent. in interest rates is equivalent to £350 million, so on that score, since November, some £1,400 million has been taken off the cost of industry.
  The new stock relief scheme, mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will put £180 million into industry this year and £450 million next year.
  The industrial building allowance has gone up from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. There are also the improvements and the relaxations that have been made in the development land tax. Those measures will be of value to the construction industry and to manufacturing industry over the next year.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly how many jobs those measures are likely to create in the construction industry? Is not that a miserable approach to the construction industry, which needs something much more decisive than that?
  Mr. Prior: I cannot give an estimate of the number of jobs. I am not certain that any measures can ever be designed with that end in view, but I am quite certain that over the next few months these measures will be of help to a number of industrialists who will be seeking to make up their minds whether to build new factories. That is the way in which these things happen. But I certainly could not put a finger on the number of extra jobs that the measures will create.
  I now turn to energy prices. As a result of the working party that was set up by the NEDC and that reported at the last meeting of the NEDC, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy have been able to announce that the external financing limits of the gas and electricity industries will be allowed to expand, so that in the gas industry £73 million, and in the electricity industry £43 million, will be available to offer reductions to those who are bulk users on a large scale of those two commodities. That will enable them to be considerably more competitive in relation to Germany and other countries.
  There is in addition—I have not heard this mentioned once during any speech in the course of the debate—the very valuable £50 million of additional capital which is being made available to those who will convert their boilers from other forms of energy to coal over the next two years. I should have thought that that would have a warm welcome on the Labour Benches. It does not seem to have had one this afternoon.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of energy prices, will he agree that the 20p on petrol will more than cancel out the trivial benefits to which he has just referred, and that industrialists from one end of the country to the other are up in arms about the effects of the Budget on their businesses? Does he agree with them?
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has picked out one aspect of the Budget and compared it with another, such as the increase in petrol prices. However, the Budget must be taken as a whole and the measures—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are trying very hard, but they are not doing much good.
  The enterprise package for small businesses including the loan guarantee, the raising of the VAT threshold, the changes in tax reform and the new tax relief are only some of the 50 new measures that we have introduced during the past two years in order to help small firms. In addition, we have set up enterprise zones. From experience of their constituencies, hon. Members will know that there is enormous demand for small factory units all over the country and particularly in development and special development areas. Many of the new jobs that this country desperately needs will have to come from that area. Our measures to help small businesses will be of enormous aid in helping to create more jobs.
  For the moment, I shall leave aside the details of the Budget. Too little credit has been given in our debates to our recognition of the need to cushion some industries from the effects of the recession. The difficult changes that accompany it are extremely difficult for a number of companies to cope with, particularly some nationalised companies. Changes should have been made over the past 20 years, but they have not been carried out. I shall give two examples of the way in which we have helped to bring about change. If we had not done so there would have been extremely serious unemployment problems. First, I refer to the money and assistance that we have given to British Leyland, the British Steel Corporation and to companies such as Rolls-Royce. Undoubtedly such assistance has had a major effect on the levels of employment in those industries. In the West Midlands, the small private firms that are involved with British Leyland welcome the assistance that we are giving that firm.
  This morning I was delighted to read in the newspapers—I believe that it is also on the tape—that in the first 10 days of this month the Mini Metro has become the best selling car in Britain—[Interruption.] The Opposition now seek to take the credit for what has happened at British Leyland. Opposition Members would take the credit for anything. If they want to take the credit for what has happened at British Leyland I hope that they will also take the credit for the mess that they got it into originally. From the beginning, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) had a lot to do with the mess that British Leyland got into.
  The Mini Metro makes the point that if we can produce the right car of the right quality at the right time, the British people will buy it. In 1975 we produced 1,268,000 and we imported 34 per cent. of our total market. In 1980 we produced 924,000 and imported 57 per cent. of our total market. If we produced the right cars it would have a major effect on the activity not only of the car industry but of the component and steel industries. At Llanwern, South Wales, steel productivity is running at record levels,
  24
  which are equivalent to the best in Europe, if not the best in the world. We can achieve such success if we make the cars that require the steel. The whole of British industry can be helped by the sort of measures that we have taken.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government are allowing Linwood to go to the wall? Despite the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the "successes" of British industry, there is nothing in the Budget or in the Government's policy that will improve employment prospects in Scotland.
  Mr. Prior: I do not wish to be so controversial as to get into an argument with the hon. Gentleman on the subject of Linwood. If productivity had increased over the past few years, and if the right goods had been produced at the right time, the Linwoods of this country would never have been closed. On Saturday the newspapers announced that Rolls-Royce had secured and retained the order from Eastern Airways. That is an example of what can be done with a good work force, good management and aggressive salesmanship.
  For too long, management, the unions and the workers have sat back and thought that everyone else would earn them a living. If we were to get out of our problems simply by reflating the economy with a lot of extra consumer demand we would be driven straight back to all the problems that we had before. We shall continue to increase help to industry and to individuals wherever and whenever we can.
  I turn to three special employment measures that we have introduced. This coming year they will cost over £1 billion. I refer to the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the youth opportunities programme, and the community enterprise programme. Those three measures, together with the job release scheme, will cost over £1 billion. They are already helping 926,000 people to retain their jobs. That is a measure of what we are doing to help industry and to help people in a very difficult position.
  I turn to the increased expenditure for this year. On special employment measures, £900 million is involved. For British Leyland and Rolls-Royce the sum of £800 million is involved. Above the amount allocated in last year's White Paper on public expenditure, £1,500 million goes to the nationalised industries. That figure is approximately the same as the amount being raised through extra taxation. Therefore, we have a perfectly justifiable case for saying that the extra money that must be raised via difficult and painful taxation will at least help employment and will help to sustain employment changes and investment in a number of vital industries.
  Not enough money has gone into investment in both the public and private sectors. It is not a matter of one sector being good and the other bad, but of the rate of return on that investment. For years the Oppositon were prepared to put money into industries regardless of the rate of return on investment. The steel industry is a classic example of wasted money. The Labour Government refused to allow the 1973 White Paper to go ahead. They introduced the Beswick plan, which delayed the steps that should have been taken to put that industry on a firm basis. They allowed vast sums to be invested when the market was falling. As a result, we still have to prop up British Steel. That is a classic example of wasting a large part of investment.

  25
  In the past few years, too much has been spent on consumption. We have been spending and consuming that which we have not earned. At the same time, we have—to some extent—been consuming other people's goods. Those in work and their dependants have been largely shielded from the effects of the recession. In the three years from 1977 to 1980 real incomes for individuals have risen by 17 per cent. after tax. At the same time disposable income of companies has fallen by 25 per cent. Our continuing prosperity as consumers has been bought at the expense of unemployed and of a lack of investment. In other words, those in jobs are enjoying prosperity at the expense of the jobs and investment for tomorrow. One of the main thrusts in the Budget strategy is to bring about a change in that position.
  There is no recognition of this by the Opposition. All that they have done is to take the TUC's £6,000 million boost which they announced in their strategy presumably—[Interruption.] They have not even done their homework. They never do their homework. The CBI asked for an increase of £1,500 million for each of four years. [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Fife, Central that that is different from the £6,000 million in one year, which is what the TUC has asked for.
  The Opposition have asked for £6,000 million more now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] If we add this year's PSBR of £ 13½ billion, that makes £19½ billion. The Opposition would have no increases in taxes and they would have indexed the Rooker-Wise amendment, so we can say without any shadow of doubt that had the Opposition's policies been followed the public sector borrowing requirement this year would have been well over £20 billion.
  The Leader of the Opposition, to use his words, does not give a fig for the Chancellor's PSBR. It appears that no one gives a fig for him or for the Opposition, because amidst all the reactions to the Budget there has hardly been any mention of a Labour Party alternative. Tough Budgets usually shift attention to the Opposition, but not this Opposition. Virtually all the commentators have dismissed the Opposition's case as being totally disastrous. Put bluntly, in a nutshell the Opposition's case is spend, borrow, print and, when that does not work, bring in a prices and incomes policy to keep the lid on. It is hardly surprising that anyone pays any attention to them.
  We know that many of the remedies and well-tried answers of the past 30 years are not on offer today. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not from your lot"] Nor from any country in the world that believes in high employment, prosperity and an increasing standard of life. Other countries with a much greater record of success than we have are also running into trouble. A popular and easy choice was never open to us. The country understands that, even if Opposition Members do not.
  We also understand what we are demanding from the whole country. We are in no doubt that today's sacrifices must be seen to be fully worth while in years to come. All this makes it crucial that, as the pick-up in the economy comes, every one of us responds in the right way. That applies to the unions, to management and to the Government. We have to turn our minds to how best to foster that response to ensure that our chance does not slip by, as has so often happened in the past 20 years. It is because I believe that the Chancellor had to introduce this
  26
  tough Budget and that the policies of the Opposition would be disastrous for this country that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Budget and the Chancellor.
  4.4 pm
  Mr. Eric G, Varley: For 32 minutes the House has listened to the Secretary of State for Employment, in a bit of a political knockabout, saying what he does not really think about the Budget. He must have searched the Budget Statement desperately for a passage or two that he could support.
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked how the stimulus to the construction industry would help. He would not tell my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but I can tell my hon. Friend that the stimulus in the Chancellor's Budget Statement is £25 million, and that that expenditure, which is not likely to arise before 1984–85, will not help the construction industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the coal boiler conversion scheme. That is welcome in itself, but £50 million over the next two years will not stimulate employment either.
  One would not think that the right hon. Gentleman was the same right hon. Gentleman who, apparently, as part of a large faction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, has been leaking opposition to the very basis of this Budget to any journalists that he could get his hands on. Of course, not many journalists are easily available these days. Most of them have been corralled in the press room at No. 10 Downing Street in more or less continuous session, being told on behalf of the Prime Minister how gutless her Cabinet colleagues are. Meanwhile, back in the House, there has been scarcely a speech in support of the Budget from any of the Conservative Back Benchers who have taken part in the debate so far.
  The debate in the House has been accompanied by an unprecedented debate in the country about the Budget. The verdict of almost every section of opinion has been overwhelmingly and vehemently against the Chancellor's proposals. The anger of the TUC has been accompanied by the despair of the Confederation of British Industry.
  After the talks last Friday at No. 10, the Prime Minister's indefatigable press office described her discussions with representations of the CBI as "friendly and businesslike." But when the president of the CBI, Sir Raymond Pennock, was questioned on the subject, he said that he would rather describe the budget as "businesslike." Sir Raymond's comment on the Budget was:
  "This was not the 'business' Budget which had been widely trailed. It is something that we neither hoped for nor expected. It will penalise business and will increase prices, bankruptcies and unemployment."
  Even the City has shown disapproval, as evidenced by the heavy fall in the Financial Times index.
  While all these hostile and bitter reactions have been fully justified by the dimensions of the Chancellor's failure, the scale of the disaster that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister have inflicted on the country can best be gauged if we set that catastrophe against the vainglorious objectives that the Government set themselves on coming to office.
  I do not know how many copies of the Queen's Speech in 1979 survive in No. 10 Downing Street or in the Treasury, or whether the Prime Minister has ordered that all copies be shredded. That would be appropriate, because the Government's policies as proclaimed in it are certainly in shreds.

  27
  I providentially retained a copy of that Queen's Speech, and it is instructive now to read what is laid down about economic policy. It said:
  "My Government will give priority in economic policy to controlling inflation through the pursuit of firm monetary and fiscal policies. By reducing the burden of direct taxation and restricting the claims of the public sector on the nation's resources they will start to restore incentives, encourage efficiency and create a climate in which commerce and industry can flourish. In this way they will lay a secure basis for investment, productivity and increased employment in all parts of the United Kingdom."
  After two years, not a word of that Queen's Speech has been fulfilled. The objective to which all else has been subordinated is the control of inflation, yet today inflation is about 3 per cent. higher than the rate that the Government inherited. That is before the addition to the inflation rate of the 2 per cent. by this Budget. It is before the rent rises, the fuel increases and the rate rises that are still to come.
  What a price the nation has had to pay for the Government's obsessive subordination of every other aspect of our economic life to the mystical objective of controlling the money supply—an objective which has totally evaded the Government. By this Budget, they have had to admit the complete failure of their attempts to control public spending and borrowing. The cost to the nation of these policies would have been appalling even if the policies had succeeded, but the policies have manifestly failed, and this Budget is a confession of their failure.
  Sir Frederick Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the approaches to the International Monetary Fund by the previous Government, the help they received from that fund and their request to be bailed out, showed their lack of control of the economy?
  Mr. Varley: I shall not avoid that question, because I am coming to the comparison between that period and the last two years. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will be able to make the contrast between that period and the period of the present Conservative Government.
  The nation has had to pay an appalling price: the extraordinary fact that prices have been deliberately pushed up by a Government whose aim, according to them, was to control and reduce inflation; the initial folly of the VAT increase, from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent.; the regular increases in prescription charges, which have multiplied their cost fivefold, from 20p when Labour left office to £1 for each item.
  Now there is the remarkable case of the increase in petrol prices. The House will recall the fury that greeted the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to increase the tax on petrol in 1977. The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, responded immediately from this Dispatch Box. She said:
  "I think that we were all shaken … by the extent to which he has loaded extra taxes on the motorist, which will undoubtedly react very heavily on the number of people in the rural areas who have to use their cars."—[Official Report, 29 March 1977; Vol. 929, c. 292.]
  The Prime Minister was shaken by that proposed increase of 5½p on a gallon, yet her proposal today is not 5½p but 20p. When Labour left office the price of a gallon
  28
  of four-star petrol was 84p. As a result of this Budget, it has risen to an average price of £1·55—an increase of 71p over the last 23 months.
  The wider effect of the economy on the Government's deliberate deflation has been to push the country into the worst slump for at least half a century. Since Labour left office, industrial investment has fallen by 8 per cent., productivity in manufacturing industry has fallen by 4 per cent., and manufacturing production has fallen by 14 per cent. Firms dealing in bankruptcies, liquidations and company failures have become Britain's only growth industry.
  What a sorry mess we have reached. In the first two months of this year alone, nearly 3,000 companies were wound up. The record is just as grim for the companies that have managed to stagger on somehow and survive in business. These are not the lame duck companies or the difficult companies about which our abrasive Prime Minister is so scathing. Some of the greatest names in British industry are reeling under the lash of her policies. One of the greatest hopes for the future, International Computers Ltd., is now in desperate straits. How that company must wish that it still had the protection of being partly owned by the National Enterprise Board.
  Other major companies are in trouble. In the second half of last year, Fisons went into deficit. In the last financial year, Lucas Industries suffered pre-tax losses. The profits of Tube Investments have slumped massively. Imperial Chemical Industries has just gone into loss, and has endured its worst trading year since the 1930s.
  These are the sombre achievements of a Government who promised, in that first Queen's Speech, to
  "create a climate in which commerce and industry can flourish".
  But the impact on employment has been the harshest of all. ICI had 6,000 job losses last year, and its chairman, Sir Maurice Hodgson, expects a similar number this year. Lucas has suffered thousands of redundancies. Tube Investments had 5,000 redundancies last year and has already announced another 3,000 for this year. All over the country workers who are in work at all often have work for only part of the week. At the end of 1978, Labour's last full year, the number of workers in manufacturing industry stood off for the whole or part of the week—that is, those on short-time working—was 38,100. At the end of 1980, it was well over 500,000. By the end of January 1978 the number of workers covered by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme was 8,956. At the end of January this year it was 680,000, and the Secretary of State has just told us that it is about 900,000 now. Even on my figures, the increase has been 7,600 per cent. under that scheme alone.
  The number of redundancies last year was half a million. The fall in employment in manufacturing industry last year was 750,000. All over the country the present Government's policies have taken their toll in a grim roll-call of unemployment, which is more than 1 million up on the level two years ago. Areas that were once prosperous now live under the shadow of unemployment.
  We all remember how Saatchi and Saatchi had to round up the Hendon Young Conservatives to impersonate a dole queue in that notorious poster. We were told last weekend that the Tory Party has decided that times are so hard that it cannot afford so much work by Saatchi and Saatchi. I should be surprised if Tory Central Office was put off by the condemnation of Saatchi and Saatchi's methods by the Advertising Standards Authority. But if Saatchi and

  29
  Saatchi has another poster in mind, it can send its cameramen anywhere in the South-East. It can even send them to Conservative Central Office, where last week 40 redundancies were declared, and a spokesman for Conservative Central Office said that this was due to
  "inflation and the economic recession."
  Unemployment in the South-East, in the last two years, has risen from 303,000 to 527,000. In East Anglia, represented by the Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment has risen from 5 per cent. to 8·4 per cent. In the East Midlands it has almost doubled. It is up heavily in the South-West. It has nearly doubled in Yorkshire and Humberside.
  In the West Midlands, unemployment is up 117 per cent. That is the humiliation that the present Government have heaped upon a region which could once proudly call itself the heartland of British manufacturing industry. In the West Midlands today one worker in every nine is looking for a job.
  In other parts of the country, the unemployment rate is even worse. In the North-West, one in eight is unemployed. One in eight is unemployed in Scotland as well. If one walks down any street in Wales, every seventh person one meets is likely to be out of work. It is the same in the Northern region. In Northern Ireland unemployment affects one worker in every six. It is the same sorry story from Dover to Londonderry.
  I think that it was Disraeli who depicted the Tory Party as the party of two nations. The present Tory Prime Minister has succeeded in creating one nation—a nation sorrowfully united by the affliction of mass unemployment.
  Unemployment is now biting deep. Twenty-one per cent. of all enemployed men have been out of work for more than a year; 40 per cent. of all unemployed men and 36 per cent. of all unemployed women have been out of work for more than six months.
  But if one feature of this horrifying unemployment is more shameful than any other, it is the unemployment among young people. Under this Government, unemployment among school leavers has increased by 230 per cent. If there is one thing for which this Prime Minister will never be forgiven, it is the blighting of so many young lives. During the right hon. Lady's premiership, she has inflicted great damage on the country, but none is so unacceptable as the waste of a generation.
  No one has described more starkly the difference between employment in Labour's last year and employment during the past 12 months than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who made a series of pledges on television yesterday about income tax reductions during the remainder of this Parliament. I can assure the House that the Opposition will file away the transcript of what the right hon. Gentleman said for ready reference in the next year's Budget debate and the Budget debate after that, if we get one.
  In the Red Book for 1979, the Financial Statement and Budget Report, published and signed by the Financial Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman said about Labour's last year in office:
  "Unemployment fell slowly but steadily during the course of 1978. In December, United Kingdom unemployment (excluding school leavers under 18) was about 100,000 below the peak level of September 1977. Unemployment increased in the early months of 1979, but the rise seems to have been due to a combination of severe winter weather and industrial disruptions. By May, unemployment had fallen back to a level about 10,000
  30
  lower than in December … In the 12 months to December 1978, United Kingdom employment increased by around 190,000, a rise of just over ¾ per cent."
  That is what happened during Labour's last year in office, which the House can contrast with the present Government's first 18 months, again usefully provided in the Red Book by the Financial Secretary. Last week, he said:
  "Between June 1979 and December 1980 employment in Great Britain is estimated to have fallen by over 1 million. … Unemployment rose thrugh 1980, with a monthly rate of increase of over 100,000 in the final quarter … Notified vacancies fell to around 100,000 in early 1981, significantly below the levels recorded during the last recession, … while the number of operatives on short-time working had increased over the same period from 30,000 to about half-million."
  But unemployment will get much worse yet. That is made clear in the public expenditure White Paper published last week, which tells us that the Government's unemployment assumptions for the next three years are 2,700,000 for 1981–82 and 2,900,000 for each of the two following years.
  Worst of all, it has all been for nothing. In that first bombastic Budget two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that his reductions in the burden of income tax were as substantial as they were unprecedented. Very little, if anything, remains from the income tax handout at that time.
  Mr. John Evans: Nothing.
  Mr. Varley: In fact, we are now told that the income tax burden is greater today than it was when the Government came to power. How ironic is the promise in the last Conservative manifesto to help the low paid by raising tax thresholds. On Thursday, the Secretary of State for Social Services was forced to admit that this Budget actually widened the poverty gap. He did not believe that it deepened the gap, but he said that it widened it. That is a direct result of the Government's dishonourable abandonment of the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment.
  Mr. Denis Healey: Where is the Financial Secretary?
  Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman has probably gone to Zurich, as he did a few weeks ago, to tell people there that taxation will go up even further.
  Two years ago, the Minister of State, Treasury, boasted to the House that
  "it would have been impossible for the amendment to succeed without Conservative votes in the Standing Committee "— [Official Report, 27 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 576.]
  That provision has now been ditched. Even by the shoddy standards of this Administration, it is still impossible to understand how the Financial Secretary can honourably remain a member of this Government.
  Far from falling under this Government, the tax burden as a whole has actually risen. As a proportion of the gross domestic product, taxation was about 40 per cent. when Labour left office. With this Budget, it will be not 40 per cent. but 48 per cent.
  In these days of complete failure, the Prime Minister has taken to standing with her hand on her hip delivering little moralistic lectures to the nation. The latest boring instalment came last Wednesday when she made The Guardian Young Businessman Award to Mr. John Gardiner, a first-class businessman and a gentleman who last achieved national prominence 15 months ago when he

  31
  took part in the mass resignation of the National Enterprise Board because he could not stand the policies of the Secretary of State for Industry.
  Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister really got carried away. She stamped her foot and had a public tantrum. In the most disagreeable way, which was later transmitted for our edification from our television screens, she told the nation:
  "I think one of the most immoral things you can do is to pose as the moral politician demanding more for health, more for education, more for industry, more for housing, more for everything and then when you see the bill say 'No. No. I didn't mean you to pay tax to pay for it.'"
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Varley: I suspected that I would get a cheer for repeating that comment of the Prime Minister's, and I have not been let down.
  What are the facts? The right hon. Lady says that we have to pay more tax so that we can spend more on health. But we are paying 20 per cent. more in tax to get a 2 per cent. increase in health expenditure. The right hon. Lady says that we need to pay more tax so that more can be spent on education. But taxation is going up while expenditure on education is down by £650 million since Labour left office. The right hon. Lady says that more taxation is necessary so that more can be spent on industry. But spending on the support schemes of the Department of Industry is down 30 per cent. from what it was in Labour's final year.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Varley: I have not finished. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but there is more to come, and I think that I know the point that he wishes to make.
  The Prime Minister says that we need to pay more tax so that we can spend more on housing, but she has cut housing expenditure since Labour left office by £1,600 million. What dishonesty and deception that is.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell the House where £7 billion has gone instead of on the National Health Service and instead of on education? Of that sum, £2½ billion has gone on Clegg awards to the Civil Service and £5 billion has gone to the British Steel Corporation, British Leyland and everything else that the Labour Party is supposed to stand for.
  Mr. Varley: In a moment or two I shall tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) where the great proportion of this money has gone. The Secretary of State for Employment knows where it has gone.
  We are paying billions of pounds more in taxation, but the nation is being taxed to finance unemployment. The increase in unemployment since this Government came to office is costing the nation £6 billion a year, and that is in cash terms; it is impossible to measure the indignity, the misery and the human degradation.
  How much better it would be if that £6 billion was being used on education, housing and industrial support, in creating jobs and providing hope for those now in despair. It is because this Government are squandering financial
  32
  resources and at the same time destroying the nation's human resources that the Opposition will vote against this Budget tonight.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in the House since I ceased to be its Leader two months ago, I hope that in those circumstances the House will allow me to preface my reflections on the Budget with some brief personal remarks.
  Leaving high office is a notoriously traumatic experience. It has often led people to bitterness, a severing of old loyalties, to losing any sense of proportion and, what is perhaps the same thing, any sense of humour. I am happy to say that I have been preserved from all such undesirable side effects.
  I was grateful for the opportunity I have had to serve this Government and, even more, to serve this House. With the single exception of your position, Mr. Speaker—which by universal consent you fill with a distinction that will number you among the great Speakers—there is no higher honour that a Member can have than to be Leader of the House. The essence of the position lies in the title. One is Leader of the whole House, not of any part of it. I congratulate my successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), on continuing in that tradition.
  Government office has its compensations, but it also has its drawbacks. Ministers are not free to express individual views in public. [Interruption.] That is the constitutional rule which I myself have always obeyed. For that reason, among others, I declined the post of Minister of State in the Department of Education and Science that the Prime Minister offered me. At a time of major political turmoil, when men and women are abandoning the allegiances of a lifetime for reasons of honour and conviction, I wished to be free to make a contribution from the Back Benches. It will be an individual contribution, but I hope that it will always be within the parameters of respect for a Government of whom I was recently part and within the historic traditions of a party that has survived so long precisely because it has concerned itself with social issues and is based—I need not remind my right hon. and hon. Friends in the centenary year of Disraeli's death—on the concept of one nation.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two aspects of the Budget. First, on the basis of its own terms, it is an exercise in intellectual consistency and rigour. Secondly, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courage. However, I must enter a caveat at once. I was astonished and indeed horrified to see included what is, in effect, a retrospective levy on bank profits. That was a point made earlier in our debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). That tax is wholly inconsistent with the main thrust of the Government's economic policy which is to legitimise once again the notion of profit. It consitutes a sacrifice of principle to expediency.
  Of course, there will be no popular rallying to bankers. I have no doubt that the extra cash is useful. However, it is a sowing of dragon's teeth that will bear a later harvest. My right hon. and learned Friend has led the way. Others, less well intentioned, will undoubtedly follow.

  33
  The Chancellor's courage is self-evident. He has stood up to a barrage of criticism from outside the House and, indeed, within it. The one section of the Budget that has commanded unqualified support in all parts of the House is that on small businesses. That is right. As the experience of the United States economy shows, more jobs are provided by the expansion of small businesses than from any other single source.
  The loan guarantee scheme and the provisions for business start-ups in this Budget, taken with the concessions on corporation tax and the tax relief for small workshops in the previous Budget, add up to a charter for small businesses. I hope that the skill that went to make up this package will be matched by the enthusiasm, vigour and imagination with which the contents of the package will be made known throughout the country.
  I turn to the wider issues involving industry in general. It is at that point some doubt begins. I do not quarrel with the Excise duties that have been raised, painful though they undoubtedly are. I believe that there is a clear economic case for the increase in tax on drink and tobacco, and even on petrol. However, I fully understand the anxieties of many of my hon. Friends. After all, we are in politics and not economics. There are limits to the burdens that any party can place upon its natural supporters. The Tory Party is still rooted in the land and the countryside. It is on the constituency that a disproportionate share of the burden will fall.
  My doubts centre on the use to which the increased revenue will be put and the way in which the balance has been tilted away from industry and towards a reduction in the projected public sector borrowing requirement. Is not there a danger that £10·5 billion will constitute a totem when in fact it is not more than a forecast and subject to all the errors and variations of forecasts? I accept that there must be a broad consistency between fiscal and monetary policy, but there cannot be an exact relationship between them. If there were we should not have been able to have the very welcome reduction in interest rates that took place in November.
  If one looks back to the forecasts for PSBR of £8·5 billion in the last Budget one sees how impossible it is to treat this part of economics as an exact science. I fear that there will be a repetition of history—that industry will not be sufficiently stimulated, that unemployment will increase, and that the deficit will rise because benefit payments will have to be paid and there will be lost revenues. I fear that there will be not a virtuous but a vicious circle.
  I certainly welcome the measures to help British industry. The reduction in interest rates will be a major help, but I fear that the reduction will not decrease the value of the pound for long. I welcome the measures for stock relief and those to help the large-scale users of gas and electricity. I know from experience of factories such as the English Electric Valve Co. in my constituency, what a heavy burden is placed upon companies by energy charges. Yet I feel that the measures do not go far enough.
  I wish that two proposals had been included in the industrial package that would have made it as important as the package advanced for small businesses. I should have welcomed a reduction in the national insurance surcharge, which really amounts to a poll tax. The CBI has pressed for a 2 per cent. reduction. Surely, it might have been within the tolerances and margins of error of the calculations on PSBR to make such a concession?
  34
  Secondly, despite the technical, contractual issues that are involved in reducing the tax on heavy fuel oil, I had hoped that something would be done in that regard.
  There is another major danger to which I draw the Chancellor's attention, namely, the lack of demand in the economy. I do not want to get involved in a semantic argument about what is inflationary and what is disinflationary. If I did so, I know that it would have an alarming effect on my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Like Bagehot's Englishman on the Continent, he is ready to blow up when the word "deflation" is mentioned in connection with this Budget. However, whatever the Chief Secretary argues about final demand—in fact, that has largely been nullified in the past by price increases—I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to consider whether there will be enough demand in the economy during the coming year.
  Let me put the argument in a more homely manner. British industry has to sell to someone, but to whom? There are only three sources of demand. The first is the consumer, but with the increase in indirect taxation of about £2½ billion and the increase in national insurance contributions of £1 billion, there will be no increase in demand from that source.
  The second source of demand is exports. Exports have held up remarkably well, but the Chancellor's own forecast, in table 11 of the Red Book, shows a reduction of 5½ per cent. in exports in 1981. That is what is forecast, and the reduction will continue into 1982 at a reduced rate. So there is not much chance of an export-led revival there.
  The third source of expansion of demand is from capital investment in the public sector. Capital investment there has fallen with appalling regularity over seven years. As The Times pointed out in a leader the day after the Budget,
  "In 1974 one-fifth of public expenditure was on capital last year it was down to one-tenth".
  Successive Governments have taken an easy way out by cutting capital rather than current expenditure. Part of the story can be read, again in table 11 of the Red Book. In 1980 there was a 16 per cent. reduction in capital spending in the capital sector, followed by a 23 per cent. reduction in 1981, and a 7½ per cent. reduction is forecast for the first half of 1982.
  Those figures are significant, because they show the scope for a programme of limited capital reflation that exists. I am not arguing for a general reflation on the lines suggested by the CBI and the TUC. I am asking the Chancellor to consider a programme to be initiated later in the year, to put some more demand, through capital investment, into the economy. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us some encouragement in this respect. That demand has run like a burden or a leitmotif through many of the speeches from this subject the House in this debate. There was the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who advocated the use of private capital. He made the point, speaking with all the authority of his position as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service.
  I hope that the Chancellor will bring forward schemes—or at least not close the door on schemes—involving an increased expenditure of private and public capital. There is a wide range of choices, including electrification of the railways, improvement of the water system, measures for the conservation of energy, and one or two special capital projects. The Channel

  35
  tunnel has been mentioned. Perhaps I may suggest another—the new British Library, which will be of immense importance for our future in the development of information techology and the sale of factory systems. Given the spare capacity in much of British industry and in the construction industry, none of those projects would be inflationary.
  A factory in my constituency has put into operation the Chancellor's principles. As a result, the work force has been reduced and there is a much higher degree of efficiency, but today that factory has a 25 per cent. spare capacity, which could be taken up without any inflationary effects. I appeal to the Chancellor to give the country some hope on these issues when he speaks tonight.
  I want to bring one final matter to the Chancellor's attention. Many of us are uneasy about the wisdom of seeming to base a whole economic strategy on a single set of monetary aggregates of dubious reliability. Of course, control of the money supply is one of the weapons at a Government's disposal to promote a prosperous economy. It is one, but there are others, such as the promotion of investment and the moderation of wage claims.
  Inflation is a moral as well as an economic evil. I have said that many times. It undermines confidence in our financal institutions and, ultimately, our political institutions. But unemployment is a moral evil, too. The loss of a job involves personal humiliation, a loss of dignity, and a feeling of diminishment as a human being. It leads to strains and tensions in the family; it can cause want which leads on to other social evils, such as vandalism, delinquency and crime. One cannot dispose of the problem by the simple statement that if we conquer inflation we shall solve our employment problems. If we conquer inflation it will be easier to deal with unemployment, but much more will have to be done in that regard.
  It is not acceptable morally, nor is it even sensible economically, to speak as though we could pursue one economic aim to the exclusion of all human and social values. Man is a moral being first and an economic being second. Of all parties, I believe that the Tory Party should be the first to recognise that. I believe that we do recognise it, but we do not always speak as though we do. Not the least of the responsibilities that rest upon our economic Ministers is that of demonstrating that we have the means to reduce unemployment and also of fashioning a discourse to demonstrate that truth both to this House and to the country.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: A king of Sparta who had been deposed was mocked by a member of the public who asked him what it was like to be a private citizen after having been a king, to which the answer was "Well, at any rate, I have tried both, which is more than you have". That is something that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I have in common. I congratulate him on the early use that he has made of the freedom which attaches to a private status.
  I associate myself with one criticism that the right hon. Gentleman made. That was his reference to the tax upon bank profits. I agree that that is a precedent of very doubtful and ugly consequence; but there seemed to be implicit in the rest of his speech the fallacy of assuming
  36
  that, because a magnitude is difficult to define and difficult to predict, therefore that magnitude is unimportant. It is quite possible for something of immense, indeed critical, importance to be of such a nature that its size cannot always be accurately foreseen. However, much of what I would say in response to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I can comprehend in bringing the attention of the House back to what I think was in some ways the most important speech in these four days of debate. That was the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) at the beginning of the second day.
  The right hon. Gentleman, unlike many others and unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) this afternoon, did not shirk posing, even in brutal form, the antithesis and alternative which is before the House in this debate and which, therefore, is before the country. It came to a sharp point in the passage where he referred to the address of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister in St. Lawrence Jewry. This is what he posed to her; "There are alternatives: one is inflation, the other is unemployment. You," said he, "and the Government have chosen unemployment rather than inflation."
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct, at any rate in the short term, in saying that there is here a true antithesis and alternative. There are not many assertions in this field which one would dare to make and say that they were unlikely to be controverted; but this one I would venture, that if we could contrive a rapid and severe increase in inflation over the next 12 or 24 months, we would see an equally rapid and massive recovery in the level of employment.
  I do not see how it can be denied that in the short term the escalation of output prices in advance of input prices stimulates employment. That was the alternative that the right hon. Gentleman, with great candour—a candour that has been little matched—was advancing; and no one could complain that in his speech he failed to offer a prescription which corresponded with his diagnosis, and with the opposite position that he took to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister in the choice of Heracles.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government should not be reducing purchasing power by £5,000 million through the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxation proposals. Incidentally, I would take issue with the notion that if public expenditure includes a certain sum we are taking that sum out of the rest of the economy any more in raising it in taxation than we would be in devaluing all existing currency to that extent by inflation or in taking it out of savings which would otherwise be directed into other channels. However, there at any rate, is one of the propositions of the Opposition and their official spokesman: they reject the £5,000 million increase in taxation.
  That is not the Opposition's only proposition, assuming—as I hope I may—that I am correct in regarding the right hon. Gentleman's proposals as not so much alternative as cumulative. I should therefore remind the House of his proposals on the other side of the account, though I do not think my quotation is comprehensive:
  "The electrification of the railways….a project…well worth pursuing…clear need for an enhanced housing programme, for hospital and prison building…for new investment in our ageing water and sewerage systems. A number of road programmes should undoubtedly be brought forward."

  37
  That is by no means a comprehensive extract from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This part he did not cost, and I am therefore dependent to some extent upon his agreement or disagreement when I venture upon some tentative figures. It seemed to me that a fair assessment of what might be implied in such proposals as those would be something between £5,000 million and £10,000 million. I hope that I have not overdone it. If I have, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will intervene to put me right.
  There was also a third feature in his speech. He was quite clear about his view of the effect of the exchange rate of the pound. It
  "has acted as a tax on our exports and a subsidy to our imports, the last thing which a trading nation such as ours wants or can afford."—[Official Report, 11 March 1981, Vol. 1000, c. 912–16.]
  Part of the Opposition's policy, then, is to bring down by Government action the present exchange level of the pound.
  Mr. Michael English: Not the green pound.
  Mr. Powell: No, not the green pound. I shall let that pass.
  The right hon. Gentleman understands as well as any of us the method by which a Government reduce the exchange rate of their currency. They do so by purchasing other currencies and selling their own. It is therefore an exceedingly expensive business, as countries such as West Germany and Switzerland have from time to time discovered. Here again the right hon. Gentleman did not cost this part of his proposals; but I want to be modest, and I therefore put the figure at some £4,000 million or £5,000 million. After all, one must make massive purchases of foreign currency to succeed in such an exercise.
  The right hon. Gentleman therefore quite consistently said that this was the way to produce inflation: to increase the deficit, by operating on both sides of the equation, by between £15,000 million and £20,000 million.
  Mr. Peter Shore indicated dissent.
  Mr. Powell: That is too high, is it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am not getting from the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar all the assistance for which I would have hoped, and so I must continue as best I can. Well, I will take the lower of those figures—it is the lowest I could possibly manage—some £15,000 million additional to that monster that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about, the public sector borrowing requirement.
  I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that that would go far towards achieving his object of a howling increase in inflation over the next 12 or 24 months. That is his object, and he would intend—he says that he would intend, and I am sure he believes that he would intend—to go that way about it.
  I must admit that in the latter parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—I regret this very much—there were some slight signs of hesitation or uncertainty. There was even a tendency once or twice to try to have it both ways, to say "We can have massive inflation while not needing to have any inflation at all." There was one passage, which will be familiar to those of us who have lived through some earlier Parliaments, in which the right hon. Gentleman strayed into referring to
  "cementing with"—
  38
  both sides of industry—
  "an agreement on a counter-inflation policy."—[Official Report, 11 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 918.]
  This is our old friend "solemn and binding", Solomon Binding. This time he is immortalised in cement, but it is Solomon Binding all right.
  We understand very well what is the thinking behind this: the Government pump massive quantities of additional money into the economy, but, marvellous to relate, these do not result in an increase of wages or prices because there is "solemn and binding agreement with both sides of industry". I shall not rely on the fact that it has never turned out that way. I shall rely on a more serious difficulty.
  Mr. Heffer: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it has never worked out that way, is he ignoring the experience of the United States under Roosevelt? Is he not also ignoring the fact that during the first period of the Weimar Republic inflation was brought under control, but there was then massive unemployment which led ultimately to the rise of Hitlerism and Fascism? Will he answer that point?
  Mr. Powell: I have great respect for the attention with which the hon. Gentleman has devoted himself to the study of these matters for many years; but when he cites against our experience in Britain the actual or alleged experience of other countries I become doubtful. I remember a period, at the inception of this era of prices and incomes policy 20 or 25 years ago, when there were islands of the Hesperides overseas where they had done it and got away with it. For instance, Holland knew how to do it, so why could not we? Sweden could do it, so why could not we? In the end it turned out that they had not done it and they could not do it; and in the end the traveller's tales brought from distant lands bore no comfort to us in our own experience.
  However, I rely not upon our uniformly unsuccessful experience with our old friend Solomon Binding, but upon something that goes more directly to the case of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar. I shall grant him, as an hypothesis, that by "cementing" such an agreement, he actually does prevent inflation. Let us suppose that he succeeds and that there is no inflation. The right hon. Gentleman's policy has then failed; he has destroyed the very injection into the economy by which he intended to summon up full employment out of the depths of recession. If he could succeed in preventing inflation, he would succeed in neutralising the very antidote that he criticised the Government for rejecting.
  The right hon. Gentleman had another hesitation, another sideline, which has been mentioned more than once in different parts of the debate. He said that of course we could borrow another £15,000 million and not cause inflation, because the stuff was lying about all over the place unused. We would not be robbing others or removing it from other applications: for that £15,000 million would not otherwise be invested, here, there, or anywhere, because it represented merely idle balances—it was lying inert.
  The right hon. Gentleman need not worry. That would give him exactly the same effect as if he had printed the £15,000 million. What difference is there between obtaining the money from bank vaults where, hypothetically, it lies inert and then casting it on to the market, injecting it into the economy, and simply ordering the stuff

  39
  from the Government printers? In either case the result is exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants—he need not worry—the recipe for achieving his cure, his antidote, his specific, namely, roaring inflation during the next 12 or 24 months.
  I have not simply paid tribute to the candour of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I have also stated my belief that the results for which he hopes would indeed follow from the course of action that he sketched out. "But tarry, there is something else"—there is "the coming on of time". What happens afterwards? We have some experience of that, because we have been here before, although not, of course, on the scale contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. When I listened to his speech I could imagine Lord Barber looking down from some balcony
  "with eyes of soft humility and wonder, love and awe"
  upon his pupil and follower who had so far exceeded not simply the achievements but the imaginations of his predecessor. We know what happens. It is not something due only to an obliquity or peculiarity of the British. It is something that lies within the nature of inflation, namely, that sooner or later—and the faster the sooner—we have to stop and, when we have stopped, we recoil. Then we reap, inevitably and invariably, but now upon an increased scale, the very miseries, the very evils, the very dislocation, that the right hon. Gentleman purports to cure by his specific.
  I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman himself of intentional cruelty towards, or deception of, the British people. But any Government who followed, or any House of Commons which supported, his prescription and proposal would indeed be cruelly betraying, by simply deferring in order to reap in more intense measure the evils from which they suffer, the people who sent them to this House.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: During the course of my maiden speech in March 1971 I reminded the House of the motto of my eighteenth century predecessor, Sir Robert Walpole, which was "Say what you think." I remarked that, although that practice is unfashionable in some contemporary political circles, it is the first duty of any Member who represents a constituency in Norfolk. Once again I intend to say what I think, in the knowledge that it is often unwise, and that today it will be especially painful.
  During the 1979 general election, together with other Conservative candidates, I fought on the basis of the Conservative Party manifesto which promised, among other things, a substantial reduction in taxation, to control inflation, to ensure that genuine jobs were created in an expanding economy, that help to firms in difficulties would be temporary and tapered, and to ensure that our agriculture and food industries remained profitable and competitive. In addition to those general promises I promised my electorate, in a personal letter to fight in Parliament on issues that were important locally, and to work for electoral and parliamentary reform so that Government would become more responsive to people's needs.
  What is the Government's record on keeping their promises? Taxation generally has increased during the
  40
  Government's tenure of office. This year, for the first time in 10 years, there is to be no increase in personal allowances. Although there is no change in the rate of personal taxation, the abolition of the Rooker-Wise amendment allowances represents an increase in direct taxation of about 15 per cent. In addition, by the Government's own admission, a further 10,000 people have entered the poverty trap. The Government's failure to achieve their targets for cuts in public expenditure holds out little hope for substantial tax cuts during the remainder of this Parliament.
  After an initial and substantial rise in the rate of inflation, occasioned partly by the Government's inheritance from that lot on the Opposition Benches and the increase in oil prices but exacerbated by the Government's dogmatic opposition to any sort of incomes policy, even in the public sector, and the swingeing increase in VAT, there are now welcome signs of falling inflation. However, the social cost of the Government's tough deflationary policy is, in my opinion, unacceptable. According to recent EEC figures, Britain is high in the European unemployment league, with an increase over the past 12 months of about 64 per cent.
  There have been substantial decreases in gross domestic product, industrial production, manufacturing production and capital investment in manufacturing. The Government have knocked the stuffing out of British industry, and, despite a number of useful measures in the Budget to help small businesses, they have created conditions which have caused a record level of bankruptcy and have put hundreds of thousands on to the dole queues.
  The Government's economic forecasts assume that total unemployment will rise steadily to more than 3 million by 1982 and will stay at that level until 1984. In West Norfolk alone unemployment has risen from 2,981 to 5,276 since February 1980. In King's Lynn it has increased from 1,572 to 3,079, an increase in one year of over 90 per cent. Unemployment among school leavers in West Norfolk has increased from 139 to 297 during the past 12 months. When one considers the number engaged on youth opportunity programme schemes, many of whom may be only temporarily employed, the total increase is from 243 to a staggering 633.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the Secretary of State for Employment, for the battles that he has fought in Cabinet to secure more funds for employment creation schemes. However, it is clear that the prospect of secure employment for the majority of those now unemployed is remote unless there is a major change in the Government's policy. So much for the promises that jobs would be created in an expanding economy.
  The Government promised that help for firms in difficulties would be temporary and tapered. The Government failed totally to grasp the point that if such a promise were to be made a reality it would be necessary to establish industrial targets and to have a strategy for partnership between Government and industry of a sort similar to that adopted by our most successful major competitors such as France and Japan. However, the Government's theoretical opposition to public support for industry has caused them, under the threat of even higher unemployment, to find more public money for this purpose than might have been neccessary had they approached the problem less dogmatically.

  41
  For example, I have no doubt that the Government's recent decision to bail out British Leyland yet again and to promise a further £1,000 million of public money could have been avoided. During my much criticised and totally misunderstood one year as a consultant with Datsun (UK) Limited, which ended in December 1980, I brought back from the vice-president of Nissan in Japan an offer in writing to discuss with the British Government a feasibility plan for a partnership between Nissan and the Government for a major rescue operation for British Leyland. That offer was conveyed to five members of the Cabinet. Had serious action been taken upon it there was the chance that a substantial Japanese investment and a transfer of high technology to British Leyland would have laid the foundation for a much larger British motor industry than now seems likely or possible.
  Close partnerships between the Government and British industry, between the Government and British exporters and between the Government and sources of foreign technology and investment are essential if we are to find effective and, in terms of public sector finance, inexpensive solutions to the problem of enabling British industry to adjust more rapidly to international competition and to ensure that the manufacturing sector of our economy provides a greater proportion of our national wealth than at present.
  Small amounts of public funds in support of research and development, for example, or by way of soft loans to private firms with good ideas and able management, can be far more effective than large disbursements of public funds in expensive industrial disaster relief.
  The Government promised that our agricultural and food industries would remain profitable and competitive. I can only report, with sadness, that three major food processing companies in or near my constituency have recently closed, throwing hundreds of my constituents out of work. During the past 12 months farm incomes have decreased by about 24 per cent. Agriculture and food processing are the two major sources of employment in my constituency and these experiences are especially unacceptable to my constituents, not least because agricultural wages are far too low for such a skilled and productive work force.
  I promised to fight in Parliament on issues that are important locally. In my constituency nothing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has introduced in the Budget could be more damaging than his proposal to increase the price of petrol by 20p a gallon. Country people are greatly dependent on the motor car to get to work or to obtain access to the services that they need. Rural bus services have declined substantially and in many parts of my constituency they scarcely exist. Consequently, there is a car ownership level of 0·85 per cent. per household in rural areas and 81 per cent. of all journeys are made by car. In each instance the figure is 20 per cent. higher than in urban areas.
  In constituencies such as mine the increased cost of daily travel to and from work in an average family car could add £1 a week to the family budget. Bearing in mind the substantially lower salaries in rural areas, the rapid diminution of local services, the increasing reliance on mobile shops and high local delivery charges, the cost of living for the majority of my constituents would be substantially increased if my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal were to he agreed by the House tonight.
  42
  I promised to work for electoral and parliamentary reform. Apart from the considerable achievement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in instituting our new system of Select Committees, there is no indication that the Government will consider long overdue reform of the House of Lords or a change to proportional representation, which would ensure a wider choice for the electorate and a fairer representation in the House of the electorate as a whole.
  So much for the promises I made and for the record. As a constituent wrote to me last week "What the hell is this Government trying to do?" My work on the Select Committee that is dealing with foreign affairs—I refer especially to the study that we have been making of the Brandt Commission report—has led me inexorably to the conclusion that it is foolish to consider Britain's problems in isolation as if they are not affected by the problems of countries that are our sources of raw material and consumers of our manufactured goods and services. At a time of international recession, the Government have a particular responsibility to create employment opportunities at home without fuelling inflation.
  In a lecture to the Economists Society earlier in February, my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said that one cannot spend one's way out of deflation; one can only expand one's way out of inflation. How much I agree with him. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Government did not differentiate between public capital expenditure and public current expenditure in tackling inflation when they first came to office. In the current domestic slump, it would have been sensible to increase capital expenditure on infrastructure projects to provide employment for the currently unemployed and to raise tax revenue from them rather than allowing their enforced idleness to contribute substantially to public current expenditure. In addition, infrastructure projects such as the desperately needed east-west roads in my region or a constructive energy conservation policy for householders could have helped to improve our national efficiency.
  The Government would also have been wise to pay more attention to the importance to Britain of our Third world trading partners. It is worth remembering that our balance of trade surplus with the Third world is almost as large as the total balance of payments surplus from all sources. How long will it be before the Government realise that a combination of aid to developing countries and improved access for the products of those countries to our markets can substantially improve export opportunities abroad and help to create additional employment at home?
  The Government expenditure plan White Paper, in table 1.11 on page 25, says that overseas aid is to be further cut in the next three years by £7 million, £10 million and £10 million respectively. I suppose that that is just another unavoidable cut in "handouts". The Prime Minister would do well to learn that aid is a form of national investment. Disbursements last year of £997 million produced a £2,100 million trading surplus. That is not bad business.
  Expenditure on diplomacy and aid is a more cost-effective way of protecting Britain's interest in some parts of the world than certain expenditure on arms, yet I note from the White Paper that total expenditure this year on overseas representation and aid amounts to only one-sixth of the defence budget.

  43
  The Government's part in postponing the summit to give consideration to the important issues raised by the Brandt Commission report is another indication of the insularity of their philosophy.
  My confidence in the Government is further undermined by the reports of substantial disagreement in the Cabinet about the economic strategy. Yet, although no less a person than the present chairman of the Conservative Party resigned from office on a matter of principle about 20 years ago, it is a matter of great regret that members of the present Cabinet, who disagree profoundly, as I do, with the Government's policies are not showing a similar degree of courage.
  In 1938, the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, wrote in his book "The Middle Way":
  "The theories of free capitalism or state socialism are remote from the immediate practical needs and possibilities of our time. The pressure of economic and political necessity is too great today for us to afford the leisure to conduct any longer the barren argument between them".
  In reviewing his re-issued book, in 1966, I wrote of his philosophy:
  "It was born of a horror that mismanagement of the domestic economy could once again lead to massive unemployment and social disintegration".
  That is what we face today and yet the barren argument goes on in the House, and the sensible and consistent management of the economy is clearly still impossible as Governments change direction as often as Governments change, in a barrage of rhetoric and amateur posturing according to the prevailing party political fashion.
  Red v Blue and Left v Right are like an eternal wrestling match which is fixed through the "usual channels", with no real winners except the promoters in the respective Whips' Offices. The country, industry and the public at large want and deserve a new deal.
  For those reasons I cannot vote for the Government's economic programme or for this Budget. I shall not abstain because, in all the circumstances, it would be dishonourable. I shall vote against the Government tonight and I have written to the Prime Minister conveying my decision to resign the Conservative Party Whip.
  A distinguished predecessor as Member for King's Lynn, Lord George Bentinck, in the mid-nineteenth century, after eight years of silence in the House and successful horse racing outside it, having supported Canning and then Peel, backed Disraeli in his long climb to become the great reforming Tory Prime Minister who aspired to one nation. I propose to follow his radical example in the pursuit of change and to seek to join the Council for Social Democracy in which I hope to help to form a new party and to develop a programme for stability, national unity and national renewal, which I judge to be vital if the country is to become truly one nation at home and is to play a leading part in international efforts to solve the problems of poverty, malnutrition and disease which afflict a wholly unacceptable proportion of mankind, on whose prosperity we depend so much for our future.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Joel Barnett: While I cannot agree with the political choice of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), I congratulate him on a sincere and brave speech. I agree with him that the social cost of the Budget is unacceptable.
  44
  The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) made an equally brave speech. He said that the Conservative Party had survived for a long time because of its social concern. If it follows the path of this Budget, it does not look likely to survive much longer.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made a—[Interruption.]—delightfully amusing speech——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can now relax and listen to the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). It is difficult to do so when a lot of chattering is going on.
  Mr. Barnett: The speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South was delightfully amusing, but it was built on a false premise. I was surprised that it came from the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience in the Treasury, although that was a little time ago. His speech was built on a wholly false assumption. He should have known that with something like the PSBR, to assume that one plus one equals two is wholly false. That was the underlying, basic falsity of the premise on which he based that amusing speech.
  However, whether or not one is a monetarist, there is a limit to how much one can or should seek to borrow. I make no bones about it. The Chancellor is entitled to ask his critics "What would you do? How much would you borrow?" I propose to try to answer that question. In the Labour Government we tried to limit borrowing as defined by the PSBR.
  In his speech in the House last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury put forward a remarkable argument. He stated that because the borrowing requirement set last year for 1981–82 was £7½ billion and it is now £10½ billion, that was reflation. On that basis, if the target had been set at nil, we should no doubt now have a £10½ billion level of reflation. The argument is so astonishing that I can only assume that it was put in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself.
  I hope that all hon. Members at least agree that, if sterling M3 is an inadeqate measure, so is the PSBR. For example, reducing the PSBR by £400 million by a windfall tax on banks—which I happen to agree with—and by £1,020 million by additional tax on North Sea oil does not have nearly the same economic effect as taking the amount out in income tax or through indirect taxes.
  I hope, too, that the House recognises the substantial margin of error in forecasting the PSBR. In the Chancellor's estimate, the margin of error in 1980–81 will be £5 billion. I do not criticise the Chancellor for that. It is not unusual to be out by 2 to 2½ per cent. when dealing with income and expenditure flows of £200 billion. If companies in many industries had only that margin of error they would be highly delighted. At page 28 of the Red Book we are told that the average annual error in the PSBR since 1973 has been 2 per cent. of GDP. On that basis, in 1981–82 the margin of error will be £4½ billion. Given such uncertainties and the different economic consequences that go to make up the PSBR, we should recognise that it is absurd for the Chancellor to tie himself to a rigid PSBR. Fortunately, he did not. He simply made himself foolish in appearing to attempt to do so.
  However, whatever the economic categories of what goes into the make-up of PSBR, it has to be financed. How much should it be? In the light of past errors, the honest

  45
  answer would be "I do not know", but I shall not answer the question in that way. If my proposals were accepted, it is possible—and I put it no higher than that—that the PSBR would be higher than the Chancellor has planned. However, as I said, it could be £4½ billion higher on his own estimate. It is also possible that, if we increase spending in the next year in certain ways, we may not only not increase the PSBR but reduce it. That illustrates the other fallacy of the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South.
  I shall not go into all the tax measures, many of which are grossly unfair. In the Sunday Express yesterday the Chancellor stated:
  "but the increases I had to announce last Tuesday were inescapable and as fair as I could make them."
  That is blatantly untrue. There is a case for increasing income tax in the Budget, but the Chancellor should have retained the Rooker-Wise-Lawson increase in the threshold and increased the basic and higher rates of tax. There can be no dispute about it; that would have been more fair. The Chancellor owes the House an apology for what he wrote yesterday.
  Without a basic degree of fairness in our tax and social system, no Government will ever be able to achieve the necessary steps to get the economy moving. The Chancellor stated that the Budget was producing a balance in favour of industry. He hit private consumers and individuals, but he has not balanced that with help for industry. The stock relief scheme and the removal of clawback was sensible, but it only recognised the obvious. Many companies would not have been able to pay the corporation tax, anyway.
  I cannot comprehend how 100 Conservative Members could be so congratulatory in an early-day motion about the other two schemes. Last week on television a banker stated that the cost for borrowing under the loan guarantee scheme by small firms will be 6 or 7 per cent. above the base rate to allow for the premium for the guarantee. Under this great boon we are talking about an interest rate of 18 to 19 per cent. The banks will still have to provide 20 per cent. risk. I regret to say that, knowing our banks, they are likely to be as cautious as ever. I fear that the scheme will bring no more than marginal relief.
  Mr. Richard Page: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that loan guarantee schemes operate in practically every other industrialised country? The calculations are 3 per cent. above the base rate for the premium and not the mythical 6 per cent. with which he is trying to denigrate the scheme.
  Mr. Barnett: A leading banker last week stated in public that the figure would be 6 to 7 per cent. above the base rate. We have not yet had a figure from the Chancellor. Perhaps he will give us one tonight. However, even if the interest rate is 15 per cent., the relief will be only marginal—although welcome, nevertheless.
  Under the business start-up scheme there will be tax relief on up to £10,000 if the money is invested for five years in a minority stake in a new company. I do not know what sort of people Conservative Members think invest in small companies. They seem to imagine that people will say to themselves "I shall risk £10,000 for five years. It doesn't matter whether I lose it. I don't mind having no say in how the money will be used. I shall get tax relief on it. I may lose only £4,000 or £5,000." It has been said that Conservative Members do not know much about small
  46
  businesses. The early-day motion confirms that. The Chancellor says that the scheme is unique to this country. I am not surprised. No other country would be so absurd as to introduce it. Both schemes are little more than gimmicks, as we had last year with enterprise zones—and we have not yet even started that gimmick.
  I share the Chancellor's wish that any stimulus to the economy should be through industry. It should not be inflationary—although, as with his VAT blunder in 1979, he has provided his own stimulus for inflation in the Budget. In the absence of an incomes policy, which the right hon. Member for Down, South derided without giving any evidence as to why he should do so, there would be a problem with any stimulus. But, as many have said, provision could be made. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) from time to time makes speeches disagreeing with the Government, although he rarely does so on the air, when he prefers to make the kind of speech with which the Prime Minister can say that she agrees. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that there should he some stimulus to the economy through increased expenditure and investment in the public sector and, I would say, in housing particularly. Not only would this he non-inflationary, but it would give greater help to the private sector than to the public sector because that is where most of the work is done.
  In practice, however, because of the delay in putting this stimulus into the economy in the public sector, the effect upon the borrowing requirement in 1981–82 would be small, because it could not be started up that quickly. Nevertheless, there would be a substantial boost to the public sector and to the private sector in terms of jobs. Far more importantly, the public sector would be ready to cope with the upturn and to provide the essential services for the private sector when the upturn comes.
  The trouble is that the Government have, as it were, fallen for their own rhetoric about public expenditure. I am prepared to concede that in my own period as Chief Secretary I was as responsible as any for being willing to accept a total cut in public expenditure without being too concerned about whether it cut capital rather than current expenditure. But it has now gone much too far. In fairness to the Chief Secretary, however, when he asks a spending Minister to make cuts in his departmental budget, and the Minister says that he would rather make them in capital than in current expenditure, it is not easy for him to insist that it must be in current expenditure.
  That being said, however, the Government have not been very successful in making a reduction even to the overall level of public expenditure. As a percentage of gross domestic product, it was 41½ per cent. in 1978–79 and 44½ per cent. in 1980–81. We are told that it will fall by about 1 per cent. in 1981–82. It is just possible that it will, although I think it extremely unlikely as it is dependent upon all sorts of things. In the short term, it is dependent upon the relative price effect—which everyone understands, of course—which means that pay in the public sector will be lower than in the private sector. In my experience, however, in many parts of the private sector there are no pay increases at all. Certainly, that applies in many parts of the textile industry.
  In the long term, even by 1983–84, the last year in this Budget, total planned public expenditure will be almost £2 billion more than in 1977–78. I am not complaining, of course, but certainly the Government are doing a very strange job in cutting public expenditure. If one includes

  47
  net debt interest, the level of public expenditure in 1978–79 was about the same as the level now planned for 1983–84. But distribution will be far worse in that a much greater proportion will go into unemployment and social security benefits rather than into the services wich has been so denuded in the past couple of years.
  One of the problems with public expenditure is that the present definition of what is or is not public expenditure is wholly unsatisfactory. When I changed the definition for nationalised industries from one which counted all investment as public expenditure, no matter how it was financed, to one related to borrowing, I thought that that would help. I have to say that it did not. The Chief Secretary last Wednesday—unfortunately I was in Committee at the time, but I have read the report of what he said—stated that
  "Whether or not such borrowing were to be classified within the PSBR is a side issue".
  I am not at all sure that it is a side issue. Of course, wherever it is, it has to be financed and controlled. Nevertheless, the present definition, in which borrowing is counted as public expenditure, together with the fact that politically this is easier to cut than much of current expenditure, has undoubtedly helped to ensure continuing cuts in capital rather than current expenditure.
  My fear is, therefore, that if the Financial Secretary, no doubt with the assistance of the Chief Secretary, is planning to cut public expenditure further this summer because of the vicious circle into which the Government have got the economy, the cuts will come from current expenditure. Moreover, they will come from yet more cuts in social security benefits because that is the only way that the Government can get out of the vicious circle into which they have brought the economy.
  The Chief Secretary also said on Wednesday that if there were more borrowing by nationalised industries
  "there would be crowding out of private investment".—[Official Report, 11 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 922.]
  Again, I am not sure who wrote that. While I accept that at certain times, in certain economic circumstances, that may be the case, it is absurd for anyone to argue at this time that if one found more money for the nationalised industries' capital investment programmes private investment would be crowded out. It is so nonsensical that I should not have expected anyone to say it. Nevertheless, the Government have said it, and no doubt they will have to find excuses when—as I hope that they will—they heed the requests of Conservative Members and find some money for new capital investment in the nationalised industries.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that "crowding out" merely means that competing forms of investment have to pay a higher rate of interest? It does not totally prevent other investment.
  Mr. Barnett: It is nice of the hon. Gentleman, as it were, to explain the Chief Secretary's view on these matters. The Chief Secretary simply said that it would crowd it out. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that that is not true. It is certainly not true today, as I gather he accepts. He is merely saying that it might cost more in interest rates. I shall come to interest rates in a moment. The basic argument is about finding more
  48
  money, as I am sure that the Government will have to find more money, for capital investment in the nationalised industries.
  As I said at the outset, I do not pretend that one can ignore the PSBR. But the way in which it is now managed has elevated what was always a complex and not easily predictable figure to a highly simplistic principle. I am bound to say that the Labour Government also elevated it too much, but the Chancellor has now taken it to such absurd lengths as to do real and lasting damage to the economy.
  I return to the straight question. What should the PSBR be? I have referred to the margin of error of £4½ billion. The Chancellor's forecast for 1981–82 is therefore from £6 billion to £15 billion, within that margin of error. If he accepts the advice of the CBI and others, including the right hon. Member for Chelmsford and the right hon. Member for Taunton, it may be higher. But I have shown that spending more money on investment in the nationalised industries would not necessarily add to the PSBR. I have on many occasions accepted the need to finance it. Nevertheless, it is absurd that we should crucify ourselves with very high interest rates in order to finance a perfectly reasonable PSBR. The Chancellor forecasts that it will be 4½ per cent. of GDP. A figure of 6 per cent. or 6½ per cent. of GDP would not be an unreasonable level of PSBR to finance without excessively high interest rates.
  If the Government and their supporters, and there are not many of them left now, apart from the Financial Secretary, were not obsessed with a whole theory of money supply and did not keep interest rates as high as they were last year in order to finance a perfectly reasonable borrowing requirement of 6 per cent. or 6½ per cent. of GDP, this might well—and I hope that it would—have the effect of bringing down the exchange rate. That would be an additional bonus.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As many people have stated, the outlook is very gloomy, but I do not think that it is the Budget which has made it gloomy. The Budget at least tried to deal with the situation as it is. However, I must admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his policies have not exactly shed a
  "kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom".
  We all know how strait the jacket is that binds him, however that jacket may first have been woven. The sort of solutions put forward by the CBI and the TUC, seeking to burst out of the jacket, would only lead to the sort of disasters which we have experienced before when such solutions have been applied. It just is not true to say that what is good for the big battalions, whether of labour or capital, is good for Britain. Nor do I think that, given the situation today with high inflation, it is in the least relevant to suggest the sort of policies which were perfectly reasonable and sensible 50 years ago when the recession was accompanied by falling rather than rising prices.
  Having said that, and so giving some support to the Chancellor's Budget, I must also say that I am not at all confident that he can achieve his medium-term strategy by means of Budget measures alone. Nor do I believe that these will take us any further than his medium-term strategy and begin to undo the errors of the past, which is one of the ambitions with which this Government came to office.

  49
  I think that we shall find that the Chancellor will need other measures, both administrative and perhaps legislative. As the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) has pointed out, the Chancellor's arithmetic is too uncertain to restore confidence by itself. If we are to maintain confidence throughout the period of short-term unemployment which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out was a necessary accompaniment to trying to cope with our inflationary problems, we shall need to see a little further beyond the immediate confines of this Budget. Therefore, I should like to see some recognition from the Treasury Bench that inflation is a symptom of our disease and not the disease itself. Surely the real disease is the gap between people's expectations and their willingness to supply.
  We see that most of all in the public sector, which is where the main problem facing the Chancellor lies. After all, price rises in most of private industry have fallen from 20 per cent. to about 7 per cent.; strikes are vanishing; restrictive practices are disappearing; overmanning has gone and there is even a considerable improvement of management.
  I am not saying that this happy situation will continue once unemployment starts falling. If there were time, I should like to say something about future difficulties for the Chancellor in the private sector as the economy starts growing and firms start expanding. Nevertheless, that is for the more distant future, because as the Chancellor has admitted, the present levels of unemployment will not fall substantially for some while.
  Taken together with the enormous balance of payments surplus, we have a private sector situation which in more normal times would have enabled the Chancellor to have had a very different Budget from the one that he has presented. It requires only a short period of reflection to see that, had the public sector and nationalised industries—where inflation is now running at about three times the rate in private industry—behaved in the way that the private sector has, the Chancellor could indeed have acted differently.
  We all know the reasons for the Chancellor's public sector problems. What worries me is whether the Chancellor will be able to cut out waste and eliminate unnecessary manpower and succeed in preventing an unnecessarily high escalation of salaries and wages. Will either he or his colleagues be able to ensure that savings are made on current account rather than on capital account?
  The right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton is also a former Chief Secretary, and perhaps it is easier being an ex-Chief Secretary than it is doing the job. Perhaps the new systems of control, not available to either of us, will help, but I very much doubt whether they can be fully effective.
  I should like to take up some of the remarks that have been made about the PSBR. My first suggestion is that the Chancellor should consider setting that target in terms of constant unemployment, as is done in other countries. At the same time, he should identify the purpose for which public expenditure is being made. He should make a clear distinction between spending on current account and spending on capital account. I do not know why that has not been done before. I remember making a speech about it 20 years ago, but through successive Governments, the Treasury has triumphed over the common sense of its Ministers; and, therefore, we have not had that distinction.
  50
  There should also be a clear distinction between capital expenditure which either earns money or should earn money, together with capital expenditure which saves money, and the type of capital expenditure which may be necessary but which poses totally different problems, because by making it the Government undertake to go in for further current spending. The most obvious examples can be seen in the social services sector, including such things as hospitals.
  By and large, although it must all be financed, I see no reason why a great deal of the Government's investment should not be classified in the same way. For example, why should investment in British Telecom, which it could well raise independently from the market were it a private company, prevent the Chancellor from doing other things at the same time, because it is now classified as public expenditure? In making this new allocation of public spending, the Chancellor would do well to isolate that element in investment which is subsidy rather than true investment.
  If in the nationalised industries my right hon. and learned Friend could identify the costs of keeping them going—I am not saying that he is wrong to keep them going—including wage costs, perhaps it would be a little easier for the country to see the contrast between the capital spending required to keep them going and the cost on current account of paying unemployment benefit and losing taxes as a result of shutting them down.
  I do not suggest that there should be a prices and incomes policy, still less anything approaching a "solemn and binding" one, as referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South. But perhaps it would be a little easier to explain to wage earners just how much their own wages are reducing the social wage of which they are equal beneficiaries. It is easy to believe that it is always the other man's wages that puts up costs and not one's own.
  I accept that these are all palliatives, and I have a grave doubt whether, without other measures of a far more wide-reaching nature, it is possible for the Government to contend successfully with the huge weight of monopoly, both of capital and labour, within the Government service itself and within nationalised industries.
  Successive Governments have given every sign of finding that without various measures such as incomes policies, which have failed, they cannot cope. I should like to see the Chancellor recognise the need to get rid of what I believe Lord Beeching once called "hidden cross-subsidisation". I should like him to find methods of reducing the burden on the taxpayers of investment in the nationalised industries by trying to go back more to the market.
  With great respect to my right hon. Friends, they seem to me to have dodged entirely the benefits of "privatisation" as well as the difficulties. I will give one example, and here I must declare an interest because I am a director of a company which once built warships. If shipbuilding had been returned to the private sector, it might have been necessary to subsidise some yards, but not to provide capital for all. Could not the Government have explained that it is an illusion to hide a subsidy behind the profits of another company? A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy, however it is financed, and the burden on the taxpayer and the damage to the work people is the same, whether it comes out of the profits of one part of the enterprise or whether it comes directly out of taxation and borrowing.

  51
  I should like the Chancellor to consider the extension—he has made a small beginning—of the process of turning back nationalised industries into Companies Act companies.
  These are all things that the Government were elected to do. They were part of the original programme. They were part of a programme that was conceived not out of prejudice or for political or ideological reasons but because the Government knew that they could not benefit the great mass of the people by bringing down the rate of inflation, by creating steady prices and by reducing taxation, unless some of the burdens which are now constraining us all so much were removed in the ways which I have briefly suggested, and which were set out in more detail in our manifesto.
  I hope that the Chancellor will be able to give some indication that he sees the need for this kind of policy, because without it I do not believe that we can look for any further relief for the corporate sector without clobbering still further the consumer through indirect taxation and the worker through direct taxation. I do not believe that it will be possible not to put up taxation further—if the Chancellor is to relieve the corporate sector to the extent that he hopes—unless he can grasp this generalised public sector nettle a little more boldly.
  We know that everything depends on the corporate sector. The Chancellor has helped especially the smaller and the growing companies and unquoted companies. Lower interest rates, indeed, help everybody. I hope that he will continue to lower the interest rates. He could go beyond that and do one or two other things, despite the constraints that are on him.
  I am usually very sceptical about investment incentives, because I believe that investment follows growth, rather than the other way round. It is investors—not institutions—who need subsidies. That has been recognised by the Chancellor in the aid that he is giving to industry. But our present circumstances are not normal. The corporate sector has borne the main burden and now needs a certain amount of relief.
  As hon. Members in all parts of the House have suggested, it is possible, without burdening the public sector borrowing requirement unduly, or upsetting the money supply, to do a little public capital spending. After all, Government's fixed investment is due to fall by 23 per cent. this year, so there is a little room here for capital spending in the public sector. It would bring work and opportunity to the private sector.
  I should like the Chancellor to consider the whole question of defence spending, because this, too, can be a help and a stimulant, like other parts of public investment, particularly to our engineering industry.
  We all know that there is a massive spare capacity in the construction industry and in the capital goods industries. Would it not be possible so to gear the allowances and investment help that the Chancellor is proposing to give that they will be an encouragement for those industries to bring forward their investment a little, rather than wait for it to happen in three or four years' time?
  It is perfectly feasible to give quicker, more effective and cheaper help to industry than we now have under the Industry Act 1972. The constraints and criteria of section 8 of that Act are very narrowly drawn. The narrowness
  52
  with which they are drawn is inhibiting small-scale help to individual companies, where not very much money is needed to do a great deal of good. The EEC criteria which are required to be met to get help from the Community are in themselves quite tight enough to enable a little flexibility to appear in our own criteria.
  I should like to ask the Chancellor one question. Why is there no computer model of a firm or an industry? We have economic models of the whole economy, but I am told that there is no basic model of the firm which could be programmed to represent different sizes and different types of company, and on which the Chancellor could test the microeconomic effects of his measures.
  We hear a great deal in all Budget debates about demand management and about the microeconomic effects, but I am amazed at how amateur and how ineffective is the technique that is brought to bear on the likely effect of the Chancellor's changes on individual companies and types of company.
  It is essential for the Chancellor to continue to bring down interest rates, and he can do that without in any way making the control of the money supply harder or making the funding of Government debt more difficult. After all, in the Budget he has a lot of new inducements for people and institutions to lend to the Government rather than to put their money into industrial regeneration. The other side of that coin should be the continual lowering of interest rates.
  With regard to the control of the money supply, the Chancellor faces far greater difficulties because of the constraints of having a very strong oil-backed currency and because of the wildly fluctuating exchange rates throughout the world.
  I agree with the Chancellor's new measures to protect us against a certain amount of currency speculation. They help, but they are a very tentative step in this direction. I urge the Chancellor, in considering future investment in industry and its impact on the money supply—and in considering all the constraints on him, to think what would happen if we could get a greater degree of stability in exchange rates. I ask him to consider much more carefully—perhaps he could give us some sort of timetable—an approach to our European partners about joining the EMS.
  I should regard that move as only a first step, because it will be very hard in the industrial world to get the money supplies of the different countries under control and to get a degree of stability into the exchange rates without having a world-wide—or at least an OECD-based—standard, preferably a standard based on real goods rather than on money.
  I have tried to give a few ideas on improving the tools that the Chancellor has at his disposal, and a few suggestions for more radical and basic changes which I believe can begin to undo the chains which seem to have bound all Chancellors for the last few years. I have done this in the hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend replies to the debate he will tell us what he sees and preferably—if he can—why he sees it. The words of the hymn with which I started my speech say:
  "I do not ask to see
  The distant scene; one step enough for me."
  Perhaps we cannot expect to see the distant scene, but for the Chancellor's Budget to be fully credible we need to see more than just this one step.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is generally agreed that one of the main purposes of prolonging our Budget debate over four days is to enable the public to inform themselves about the economy and about what the Government propose to do to it.
  Back Benchers on both sides of the House have risen splendidly to the occasion and contributed greatly to the stock of public knowledge. The most strikingly significant contribution was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), whose independence I salute. I wish him well in his membership of another group within the House. Another striking speech was made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The silence in which it was received showed that hon. Members were interested in it.
  There was a notable difference between the line taken by the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) and that taken by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). I was also struck by the correspondence between the remarks of the former Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), and those of the right hon. Member for Stockton. But the speeches from the Front Benches, particularly those of Ministers—who have overall responsibility for the Budget—have been deplorable. They must have left the public, particularly the business sector, not only stunned but bemused.
  The only attempt at a trumpet note during the Budget Statement was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about the imbalance between the treatment of business and that of the consuming public, who, he said, had had a good deal during the past two years. He also spoke about the imbalance between the public and private sectors. The attempted trumpet call came when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "Moving towards a better balance must be the central purpose of this Budget."—[Official Report, 10 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 760.]
  The hopes excited by that sentence were not fulfilled by any part of the Chancellor's speech. I am told that those who watched the reactions of business representatives as the speech was relayed in television studios were struck by their honor as the speech gradually wound to an end without giving any real cash assistance to established business.
  We Liberals believe that even the stock relief scheme—which represents the only real help from public funds to established businesses—should be considered with great caution by those businesses which think that they might get a great deal out of it. The Government's perverse refusal to pay homage to established principles of current cost accounting and their insistence on applying to all businesses—no matter what their stock in trade or work in progress—a single all-stocks index may turn the whole thing into a mouse. No doubt the all-stocks index was chosen because it is falling with conspicuous speed. Some say that in a month or two it will be down to a rate of inflation of 4 per cent. That will not correspond to the realities experienced by many businesses. However, that is a matter for the Finance Bill.
  My impression—which has been fortified by other speakers—is that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) struck the right note when he said that
  54
  business men who had heard the Budget Statement and the Government's statements would get the following impression:
  "the medium-term financial strategy means that there will be deflation for the indefinite future and therefore no point in investing".—[Official Report, 12 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 1044.]
  That sums up the situation. It is a miserable message for business.
  Some hon. Members will have found that another attitude is being expressed by interested and concerned members of the public. There is amazement that the Government should stand idly by while many of our key physical assets fall into decay. The Government refuse to harness the abilities of the unemployed, or unemployed resources, to the maintenance of our physical stock. The Government go on and on about it being their sacred duty to maintain the value of the currency. That is all very well, but is it not also the Government's prime duty to maintain the efficiency and standards of the public sector's physical assets?
  Not far from my constituency—in places such as Manchester, Blackburn and Bolton—the sewers are falling apart. There are great holes in some of the main thoroughfares and new holes are a weekly occurrence. When people see them, they say "For heaven's sake, why can't the Government take people out of the dole queues and give them honourable and properly paid work maintaining our basic infrastructure?" However, the Government have made no reference to that urgent need, of which sewers are just one example.
  In addition, the Government refuse to understand that, by coming to the rescue of our capital stock and spending money on new capital ventures, unemployment could be gradually relieved—rather too gradually for my taste—without any serious risk of halting the reduction in the rate of inflation.
  On the second day of the Budget debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) made it clear that some Liberal proposals to that end were fed into the Treasury model—through the facilities that are known to exist in the Library—well before Budget day. They were compared with the Treasury's expectations from feeding its policies through the model. It is no good the Financial Secretary heaping cheap derision on that. He knows that the Treasury relies on the model and spends hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to keep it up to date.
  On our modest proposals for capital expenditure and for getting rid of the tax on jobs—the national insurance surcharge—the model showed a reduction in unemployment, compared with the estimate given for Treasury policies, of 300,000 by the end of 1982, rising to a reduction of 400,000 by the end of 1983. For 1982, the estimated increase in the rate of inflation was only 0·1 per cent. For 1983 it was 1·2 per cent. Therefore, there could be an increase in employment in exchange for a relatively modest slow down in the fall of the rate of inflation. As many hon. Members will have expected, the real pay-off comes in the fourth year of such a programme. The public sector borrowing requirement then begins to reflect the result of much greater economic activity. Taxes begin to flow in and the economy can begin to come to the rescue of the debilitated Exchequer. One can then get the public sector borrowing requirement fully in accord with reason and almost within the Government's obsessions.

  55
  A group of modest measures was used, which sought to abolish the national insurance surcharge, the heavy fuel oil tax—a relic of an obeisance to the miners that even Mr. Scargill no longer demands—and which allowed full indexation according to the Rooker-Wise amendment and the injection of only £2 billion into increased public investment, home insulation and so on. We have not heard why the Government obstinately refuse to pay such attention to the benefit which can flow from enhanced capital programmes.
  The third and last public attitude I wish to mention is the great question mark placed by the business community over how and when the promised recovery can occur and, if and when it occurs, how the customary upsurge in the inflation rate can be avoided.
  I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us why he persists in saying that we are on the eve of the end of the recession and that, when it ends, things will come right on the production and output front without going back to a rising rate of inflation. That has not been made clear to the business community or to the House.
  My impression is that the Treasury is obsessed with the possibilities of everything coming right through the end of destocking. I ask the Treasury to consider what a fickle measurement stocks can be. With the rapid adoption of the computer throughout the whole range of business—not just the giant concerns—there will be a massive permanent improvement in inventory control. That will make overstocking very much a thing of the past in the majority of businesses. The Treasury has failed to understand the great sea change in stocking policies, even down to relatively small businesses. It is foolish to expect that we shall get out of the recession by a massive upsurge in stocking. There is little real evidence of that taking place.
  The trouble about the Budget and the reason why the public are left without any coherent explanation of where it will take us is that the rest of the Cabinet have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect not only of the few aspects of the Budget which ought still to have a veil of secrecy but of the Government's whole economic strategy. Despite my respect for some of the wets in the Cabinet, I do not understand how they can continue honourably to gather round the Cabinet table and allow just two of their number to lead the nation on a reckless adventure based on a monetarist obsession.
  We are told that the great crunch is to come later in the year, when the wets in the Cabinet will be put on the spot: if they want to preserve their spending programmes, they will have to kiss the rod and accept even higher taxation in the next Budget. If the wets are so foolish as to allow themselves to be boxed in in that way, they will be objects of derision throughout the English-speaking world. Surely, some of them can see that they must get rid of their monetarist obsession if they are to get free of the box that the Prime Minister is preparing for them.
  The Daily Telegraph, of all papers, for once seems to be the fountain of truth today. That considerable authority, Keith Middlemas, in an article on one of the middle pages, said:
  "At present, where industry as a whole is concerned, policy-making looks uncommonly like Neville Chamberlain's strategy before 1940: with declared aims only partly in line with real national interests, and implementation dogged by incoherence, lack of public or institutional support, and masked by a
  56
  headstrong direction which allows no place for the admission of mistakes. War-time analogies are rarely appropriate, but industry is now threatened more than in the 60 years since 1921, and it is worth recalling just how dramatic a remedy was eventually required in May 1940."
  I hope that rational members of the Cabinet will heed the example set by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West and will not allow themselves to be made mock of by a headstrong Prime Minister.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: I suggest that the next time the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) goes into the Library with his right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), instead of looking at the unreal world of the Treasury computer, he should spend more time studying the real world as we have known it in the past 20 years and take account of the inflationary effect of the proposals that he was putting forward. For example, the elimination of the national insurance surcharge would involve £4 billion, apart from the other huge sums to which he referred.
  I believe that on balance my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves congratulations on what clearly is a very tough but courageous Budget.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), winding up for the Opposition on Thursday, quoted from St. Luke about the sinner who repenteth. There is a certain element of truth in that, but, obviously, I believe, from a different side of the argument. There has been a certain amount of sinning by the Government in moving away from the original aims on which they were elected in May 1979. Therefore, I welcome them back into the fold, represented by this Budget.
  The attacks on the Budget to which we have listened—for example, by the hon. Member for Colne Valley—have misrepresented it in an incredibly effective campaign as the product of a madly crazed fixed monetarist group of maniacs, if that is not too strong a description—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."'] Indeed it is not. But let us consider the facts. I know how painful that will be for those who say "Hear, hear". I agree with the finding of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), that the monetarist experiment has not been tried.
  The chosen regulator—sterling M3—however much we allow for the corset, is running at more than twice the target figure. Therefore, no one could condemn, accuse or congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend for fixedly and uniquely pursuing monetarism. Last year the Government spent £77 billion, this year they are to spend £94 billion and next year, if we are lucky, we shall not get away with spending less than £104 billion. Therefore, one could hardly accuse my right hon. Friends of being madly in favour of cutting in their approach to public expenditure.
  I believe that they should be congratulated on not falling into the all too tempting trap that Governments of both complexions during the past 20 years have fallen in so often—namely, going through a period of sacrifice, losing their nerve, reflating excessively and then getting back into the vicious circle from which we have been trying to escape for so long.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on three particular areas. First, the move to the indexing of public

  57
  debt, the gilts, is imaginative and greatly to be welcomed. I recognise that in the City and in the halls of the Bank of England this has caused angst and pain. Funding at 17 or 16 per cent. long into the future would impose a very heavy burden. It also betokens a clear determination to reduce inflation. This is a mark of confidence in the success of the Government's policies. If we ensure that it is a low coupon, the challenge to industrial investment will not be nearly as great as is feared by some sectors in the City.
  Secondly, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the decision to move to—indeed, to move back to—real money and away from funny money. We are dealing, in a sophisticated world, with sophisticated people who have learnt to manipulate volume. Whether one is a bureaucrat, the chairman of a nationalised industry, the chairman of a water board, or whatever, if one is allowed to talk about volume, one can get away with murder. It is about time that they were brought back to the realities—that money means taxes and jobs, and that we cannot excape from that. We must certainly bring people back to that.
  Thirdly, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the measures which have been achieved for industry. I believe that their effects have been greatly underestimated. I hope very much that the CBI, having got its publicity campaign out of its system, will now have a much more serious look at them. I believe that for the CBI to produce the document that it did, five days before the Budget, was scarcely serious in terms of policy management of our economy, in which it must play such an important part. At that stage, it could have been nothing more than a publicity gesture. I hope that the CBI is not simply in the market for making publicity gestures, which, by definition at that stage, must have been ineffective and, therefore, empty.
  I hope that the CBI will analyse very carefully the very great importance of the measures which have been offered and which were outlined today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that it will emphasise the positive and make sure that British industry understands what it has been given and, praise God, how much more it will be given when it can sensibly be given it without running the risk of over-inflating the economy too early.
  I offer three areas in which I believe that the Government must try a little harder. In the area of Government spending, it is alarming to consider that in the second year of the present Conservative Government, out of every £100 spent in Britain, very nearly £45 is spent by the Government—that 44½ per cent. of the gross domestic product is from the public sector. Is is appalling that we know that all of the tax revenue that we shall gain this next year from the petrol duties, with all the problems and worries that that will cause tonight and later in the year, amounts to what we gave to British Steel last year.
  The examples of this are numerous, and I shall not go on, but we must understand the damage that this causes. We must also understand the very deep resentment among workers in the manufacturing sector, the private sector of industry, about what they see as the pampered treatment handed out to public sector employees, to those in the comfortable embrace of the taxpayer. If we do not understand that, we shall make a very important political mistake. We shall also make an important political mistake if we do not recognise the feeling in the country
  58
  about public sector pay. Understanding that it increased by 25 per cent. last year, people in private industry look at those who enjoy job security and index-linked pensions and whom have been offered a 7 per cent. pay increase. They cannot understand any suggestion that those conditions, in our present economic fortunes, are not acceptable.
  Here is an area in which we need strong nerves and an imaginative approach. As regards the nationalised industries, I hope very much that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to press very hard and look at every possible option to bring back commercial reality and to privatise—a horrible word from which, it seems, one cannot escape—the public sector. This was brought home to me very forcefully, a few days ago when the chairman of the Water Council was under some moderate pressure on Radio 4 about his settlement at 13 per cent. It was then only 12·3 per cent., but he defended it by saying "We have a strong economic position because we are a monopoly." He was right. But what a depressing way to defend it.
  I believe that a second area in which the Government should make faster progress is in the techniques of monetary control. We have been looking at this matter for too long. The Government came in and said that one, but only one, of their targets was to control the expansion of domestic credit. As the dialogue seems to have gone, the experts in those matters, the mandarins at the Treasury, the Governor of the Bank of England and his court, advised by the City, said "All right, if you want to do it, the mechanism for doing it is by setting interest rates." Of course, the result shows that this has simply not worked. The much-vaunted financial sophistication of London has defeated it, because with reserve asset ratios, the discount houses, and all the rest of the panoply, it has been shown that simply setting a price of credit did not stop the creation of credit. Therefore, we must find another route to it.
  We had a Green Paper in, I think, last March, and the Chancellor made another step forward last November. We had another step forward in the Budget last week but it is very slow progress. If we believe that one element of a sound policy is the control of money, we surely must make better progress and understand that this is the kernel of it.
  Lastly, I believe that there is a great need for improved mechanisms to impose the collective will—I assume that there is a collective will—of the Cabinet to achieve the ambitions on which we were elected. It is clear that if there is that collective will, it has not been implemented. I believe that part of this is because the old system of the Treasury control of Whitehall was dissipated and chipped away, and nothing has been firmly put in its place. I believe that there are proposals on offer where the Cabinet Office machinery should be strengthened, and it must be strengthened. It is not for me at this stage to go into that matter in any more detail, but much more cohesion is needed at the centre in Whitehall to implement what the British Government demand.
  In conclusion, I believe that mistakes have been made but that the original strategy for which the people of this country voted was right. I am delighted that this Budget represents a recognition that the return to that strategy must take place. As we return to that strategy, we must not forget one other important element. We shall not get the British economy and British industry right until we take one more look at our industrial relations legislation. If we

  59
  get all the other things right and omit that, we shall still fail. We cannot fail, because, as has been shown from the speeches of Opposition Members, there is no alternative.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. John Horam: I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) will forgive me if I do not refer to his speech, excellent though it was in part. I should like to refer briefly to the action that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) has taken today. It so happens that by a coincidence—I am sure that it is a coincidence, because I do not think there is some sort of 11-year itch in politics—my hon. Friend and I came into the House in 1970 on the same day. It is obvious that, while we have been on opposite sides during those 11 years, we have been describing equal but opposite parabola towards the same conclusion. I believe that it is a conclusion to which millions of British people are also coming. We shall see the proof of that as the years of this Parliament unfold.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Indeed we shall.
  Mr. Horam: Indeed we shall.
  I think that we should also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West not only for his forthrightness in stating his views but on his unique courage, because I believe that it is a unique event in the post-war history of Parliament. Since 1970, when my hon. Friend and I came into the House, we have seen many Budgets, from both sides, but none has struck me with the horror with which this Budget has struck me.
  It is horrific to contemplate the unemployment, the poverty, the hardship and the blighted hopes which the Budget will bring about. In my view, it is also appalling to see the genuine dogma-laden sterility of the view which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have taken. I refer to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately, because it is they especially, against the wishes of many of their colleagues, private and public, as is obvious from press and other comment, who have forced through this policy.
  It behoves the Conservative Party to reflect on the extent to which it has given power to two of its number to get their way on this issue over the wishes of so many in the Conservative ranks. It is also a matter of fact that we as parliamentarians should reflect on the extent to which we have given power to two people in our parliamentary system. As one who has long supported proportional representation, may I say that the events of the past few weeks have reinforced the overwhelming case for some sort of PR system to be introduced into our democratic politics. It would remove the chance of the sort of extremism that we have seen from both sides in politics in recent years and would make it necessary for politicians to argue their case and achieve a consensus before reaching such decisions as we have seen in this Budget.
  The Budget is grotesquely perverse, bearing in mind the circumstances in which we find ourselves. So what should have been done? In essence, two things should have been done, and I propose to say a few words about each of them. First, rather than the deflationary approach which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pursued—and it is deflationary, despite what the Financial Secretary has said
  60
  on television and elsewhere—the time was ripe for a controlled expansion. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have side-stepped the increasingly lost and bewildered Secretary of State for Industry and established a small committee briefed to produce coherent industrial strategy.
  On balance, I believe that it is necessary to have an expansionary approach. Clearly we are in the worst depression that we have experienced since the 1930s. We need not be in that depression. The Government have brought about the depression. They have done it because they say it is the way to reduce inflation. However, that is the equivalent of saying that the only way to fight a war is by the methods of Passchendaele and the Somme. However, it has never been necessary to use such blunt and antique instruments, and it is not necessary today. But we are in the mire and we must get out of it.
  The monetarists say that we shall get out of it automatically. It is worth commenting on how weak the intellectual defence of the once so triumphant and strong policy of monetarism has become. All that case revolves around one set of circumstances. It is a matter of historical fact—I defy anyone to take the contrary view—that we have got out of a recession automatically without the Government stimulating demand on only one occasion. That was immediately after the boom which followed the First World War. The period 1921–22 is the only occasion on record when an economy has come out of recession of its own accord without the Government providing any stimulus. It is remarkable that monetarists are now disinterring the economic history of that far distant period to prove that they are right today. That shows how weak and slim their case has become.
  But, even if one looks at that period, one sees that the Government of the day did not come out of that recession without still high unemployment and, for a period, rising inflation.
  The simple point is the one made rightly by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) today and by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on Thursday. It is that business men will not invest without some prospect of higher demand. Demand leads to investment, not the other way around.
  Everywhere a business man looks at the moment is gloom. The medium-term financial strategy projects that gloom into the medium-term future. That is why the right hon. Member for Worthing said that it was so depressing, and that is why the Government should have given some spark of hope. It should riot be, it need not be, and it ought not to be a large spark. In a situation of all-pervading gloom, only a small spark is required to give business men hope. It should not have been a large spark. For that reason, the proposals of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), Labour's spokesman on these matters, were over-egging the pudding with a vengeance. He would gorge us on reflation to an extent which would lead to the spiralling inflation we had in the first two years of the last Labour Government.
  The position of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar is fundamentally untenable. When the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) asked the right hon. Gentleman what would happen to interest rates if he had that sort of expansion put into the economy, the right hon. Gentleman replied that the truth of the matter was that a considerable margin was involved. That was not an answer. It was an evasion. The two halves of the policy

  61
  are completely incompatible, and I thought that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) did a destruction job worthy of Clemenceau on the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar today.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Clemenceau lost.
  Mr. Horam: Indeed, he did, but he had some part in winning the First World War. I am not defending the right hon. Member for Down, South, but I thought that he made an effective demolition speech.
  In framing his Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should first have had a sensible package of capital projects to offer industry. That thought has been echoed on both sides of the House. It is ironic that at The Guardian lunch to present the prize to the young business man of the year the Prime Minister addressed her remarks to an audience which included the managing director of the Laird group which itself has grown fat on public projects, including the Tyneside Metro project, bus projects and the London Underground, all of which indicate the extent to which private industry is dependent on public funding for its success. That was brought home by the success of the managing director of the Laird group.
  In addition, the Government should not have increased indirect taxes, with the possible exception of those on spirits and cigarettes, as much as they did. That takes away purchasing power, and it is clear that it adds to inflation. People are rightly incredulous when a Government who claim to have as their all-pervading policy the curbing of inflation consistently increase prices. That is to repeat the mistake made in the Government's first Budget, the consequences of which they are still suffering today.
  Thirdly, the Government should partially have indexed income tax.
  For all those three changes, which are the relaxations of demand, it would have been necessary in part to pay. The first way of paying which would have been necessary under the approach which I adopt is to increase the standard rate of income tax. A possibly slightly better way of doing it would be to put a surcharge for one year on all rates on income tax. That is an alternative which I would suggest to balance partly the sort of expansion that I am proposing.
  It is again ironic that the Prime Minister, with all her preaching about guts and morality, did not have the guts and morality to go back on this policy, because she was caught by her own promises.
  It would also have been possible and right to allow a higher public sector borrowing requirement during this year. We could have allowed it to rise, with judgment displayed, to a higher but still acceptable level. It may not have been possible in those circumstances to cut the medium——
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: How much?
  Mr. Horam: I am not saying how much. It is impossible at this stage to forecast the PSBR from the Opposition Benches. The Government have a bad enough time getting the PSBR right. The right hon. Gentleman is now expecting me to get it right. That is an absurd question at this stage. I say that we should have allowed the PSBR to increase. If the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) insists on a figure, I suggest by at least £2 billion. At least an increase of that nature could have
  62
  been allowed, given an income tax increase and given the third proposal to which I am coming—though probably I would not have been able to achieve it on that strategy—which is a reduction in the minimum lending rate. The point made by the right hon. Members for Worthing and Farnham is fundamentally correct. More than anything else business needs a stimulus to demand. That should take priority over interest rates.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman takes great delight in saying that under the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) certain things would happen to the MLR and the PSBR. I could dispute that. Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that under his extremely modest package there would be no hope of unemployment coming down but that unquestionably it would continue to rise.
  Mr. Horam: I do not believe that to be so. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Cental (Mr. Cook) does not understand an important part of economics—the role of expectation and confidence. At this time it is right to expand in a controlled way. That would keep the confidence of industry and the markets. If one expands too much, confidence disappears and one faces the burden of higher interest rates, general discontent and a feeling that the wrong policy choices have been made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, is trying to get away from the reality, whereas I am facing it.
  Such a mildly reflationary package would have a favourable downward effect on the value of the pound. The pound has come down in the last few months, but it should go down further. The package that I describe would restart the engines of growth without incurring unacceptable risks to inflation. That is the right balance of priorities at this time.
  Another obvious weakness in the Budget is that it takes almost no account of the specific views of industry. That lead to the short, sharp meeting between the CBI and the Prime Minister shortly after the Budget. That is a fundamental error. The extent to which supply side economics—a trendy phrase which resurfaces from time to time—are absent from the Chancellor's approach is remarkable, even though we were led to believe that they were an integral part when the Conservatives came to power. President Reagan does not seem to be making such mistakes.
  The fundamental argument is simple. In most successful market economies the Government have a positive and sympathetic approach to industry. They continue that positive and sympathetic approach through time on a long-term basis. In the United Kingdom many industrial leaders have been reluctant to accept that level of intervention in industry. That has been so under Governments of both parties. We now have a change.
  The leading figure in the CBI is Sir Terence Beckett, who has a record of producing successful cars. The Secretary of State for Employment talked about the Metro. Ford has had three or four successes. Sir Terence is now in charge at the CBI. He is commenting in a way which was not done three or four years ago. He is saying that we can pick winners and that "planning" is not a dirty word. He is saying that privately and in public. He has the support of many industrial leaders, people who know the reality of modern, large scale industry. When that is backed up by an excellent publication produced by the CBI

  63
  just before the Budget to guide the Chancellor—"The Will to Win"—which sets out the priorities clearly, it is perversity to ignore it.
  The general attitude of the CBI is praiseworthy, although certainly there are many inconsistencies in its approach. For example, it is a mistake to ask for both an expansion of the economy and for lower interest rates. However, the sense of reality and pragmatism in its proposals is about right. The CBI emphasises the necessity of having the right products. The Secretary of State's speech was about the Metro and how important it is, and he is right, but it would not be so successful if we had left private industry alone. It was brought about by private industry backed by a sympathetic Government who are willing to put money where their mouth is. That is the approach that we need for modern industry.
  The CBI document emphasises the importance of people and of managing and training them. The Government have an amateurish approach to that. The document calls for changes in the institutional framework by which Government policy is produced so that industry has the right basis from which to work. It is tragic that the chance for partnership between industry and Government is being overlooked. It is tragic that the Labour Party is lumbered with proposals for nationalisation, renationalisation without compensation, and excessive public expenditure while the Tory Party is impaled on the logic of its monetarist and non-interventionist approach. That is the log-jam which the British people face. It is a political log-jam which both my old colleagues and my new colleagues are prepared to break.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: As expected, we have heard a moderate speech by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). He has carefully, and rightly, distanced himself from his former colleagues. I only hope that as time passes he and his friends will find themselves finally on this side of the House.
  I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but he cannot attack the monetarists' package while defending the present level of interest rates. A reduction in interest rates, which I welcome, is one of the best ways of helping industry. I hope that further reductions will be made soon.
  I start from the point at which the Secretary of State began—namely, that in a period of deep depression, perhaps the worst for 50 years, only narrow options are open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to steer a sensible course between deflation and renewed inflation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was right to say that there is no way in which we can, in present circumstances, justify letting the public sector borrowing requirement go up and up. It is not right for anybody to argue for a PSBR of well over £20,000 million as the Opposition did.
  Whatever might be said about the Budget—I have both adverse and favourable comments to make about it—for the first time for a number of years it has focused on the reality. We have first to consider what we are spending and then to decide how we are to pay for it—whether by taxation or by borrowing.
  In the long term, one of the best aspects of the Budget will be found to be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about the importance of cash limits. I agree with
  64
  what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said about that. Regardless of the emotive language that has been used and the representations about who has guts and who has courage, we can rejoice in the fact that on this occasion some damaging illusions have been stripped away. Not least of the illusions is that there is a way of controlling inflation by controlling the money supply, that money supply is controlled by high interest rates and that success is measured according to a totally unrealistic and unreliable statistic. That concept of monetarism, which I think is just bad monetarism, is now dead, and that may prove to be the best result of the Budget.
  We also stripped away the illusion that by exercising that essentially soft option—the monetarist option was the wet option—there was no need for a public sector pay policy, because it was wet to seek to become involved in pay policies of the kind that failed in the past. Thirdly, we have stripped away in the Budget the illusion that the public sector can be insulated from, and treated in a different way from, the rest of the market.
  It is better to concentrate on the public sector borrowing requirement than on M1 or M3—whichever is considered the least immeasurable. The trouble is that the Government, the public and, perhaps, the House focus on a specific aspect of financial policy. At one time it was the balance of payments, and the whole country was wrecked by the distortion of one month's figures, by the appearance of two jumbo jets.
  Then Lord Lever had the splendid idea of getting rid of the adverse balance of payments simply by increasing the value of exports by 10 per cent. and thereby getting rid of the balancing item. Now, we do not have to worry quite so much about the balance of payments.
  So first it was the balance of payments; then it was the money supply. Now, as some Opposition Members said, there is a certain danger in fixing too much attention on the PSBR, however defined. But, whatever the academic argument, the growing gap has to be closed between Government expenditure and revenue. The Prime Minister was right when she said that we must deal in facts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, it is paradoxical that the tough policy has resulted in a Government spending more and borrowing more than ever before.
  That being so, I do not see how any of us can fail to share the Chancellor's concern about what is happening to the PSBR. He says that this year it is likely to be £13½ billion, compared with the estimated £8½ billion, and it will rise further next year if nothing is done about it. Opposition spokesmen have said "What is £5 billion here or there? It is no more than 1 per cent., and a 1 per cent. error means only £1 billion, and it is easy to be out 2 or 3 per cent." Some private companies, they said, are happy to be out only 2 or 3 per cent.—but if it is out the wrong way a private company is bankrupt. We cannot be complacent about errors of that magnitude.
  We must ask ourselves: what lies behind the significant miscalculation of this year's PSBR? In part, it is the fact that we have to find more money for the nationalised industries. I do not say whether that is right or wrong. However, a far greater proportion of the PSBR increase is caused by the fact that savings elsewhere in the public sector, in such areas as housing and education, have been more than offset by the enormous and increasing cost of

  65
  servicing public debt, falling revenues due to loss of output and falling productivity, and the huge cost of unemployment.
  As a result, not only will the national debt be over £100 billion by the end of this financial year but the debt interest is going up all the time. That is one reason why I have always believed that high interest rates are particularly damaging to the public sector, which is the biggest borrower of all.
  Gross debt interest as a proportion of public expenditure has more than doubled since 1974–75, from about 4½ per cent. to 12 per cent. for 1980–81, according to the figures that the Chancellor gave me in a written reply on Friday. The net debt interest has gone from 2 per cent. to about 5¼ per cent. That is a high proportion of public expenditure with which to saddle future generations. They will have to pay out, and we should start now.
  The cut in minimum lending rate, which did not please the hon. Member for Gateshead, West, is a welcome way to help to bring down the cost of servicing, at any rate, future debt. However, what causes more concern is the rising cost of unemployment, which, if all the relevant factors are taken into account, may amount to about £15 billion next year. Moreover, that is quite apart from the human and social consequences which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) mentioned in his eloquent speech.
  According to Treasury figures, each extra unemployed man costs the State £3,500 a year in lost revenue and the cost of benefits and free school milk and meals. The figure suggests that the rise of 900,000 unemployed adults during the past year has cost about £3 billion, at the very least. Indeed, that figure takes no account of the other costs, such as redundancy payments, loss of indirect taxes, cost of special employment measures or lost productivity.
  Other Treasury figures are set out in the Monthly Economic Progress Report for February this year. They show that one unemployed single man is estimated to cost the country £4,835 a year, and a married man with two children £6,006. The very lowest figure that can be used is the £2,400 million that is paid out in direct benefits. That compares with £333 million in 1973–74.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly says that if we agree the bill, we have to make the means available to pay for it. I agree, but the question is, what is in the bill? My concern is that we are subsidising unemployment at a time of recession when we would do better to subsidise employment, provided that it is creating real jobs and real wealth. Keynes once said that the Treasury much prefers wholly wasteful expenditure, which it can understand, to partially wasteful expenditure, to which it tries to apply some crazy cost benefit analysis.
  What must concern us is not just the totality of public expenditure, which, heaven knows, is too high, but its direction. While current expenditure is rising—on unemployment, interest debt, and so on—all the figures show that fixed investment is falling steadily. That is the CBI's main objection. The CBI talks about a fall of 19½ per cent. in 1981. Today, we have heard other figures which show that it may be over 20 per cent.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor should break down the spending plans between capital and current expenditure. We could then consider how to redeploy resources so as to provide for capital projects such as construction, roads, electrification of the railways and so on.
  66
  We heard what was described by the hon. Member for Gateshead as a typically destructive speech—brilliant, of course—from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He proved again that he has the best mind in Westminster, until it is made up. He can be logically destructive, but he offered us no solution. Taking his argument, as we must, to its logical conclusion, we can see that he was saying that we should not do anything at all. He took the total figures for capital expenditure and treated them in the typical Treasury way—he was, of course, a Treasury Minister—as though there was no difference at all between capital expenditure, creating wealth and current expenditure, and as though there was no difference between borrowing to pay for a holiday, for a child's education or for a house.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: If current expenditure is cut, people employed by the Government will be put out of work. If it is in order to use capital expenditure to create jobs, the jobs thus created will be only temporary; the public sector borrowing requirement will be increased by putting out of work people employed in the public sector.
  Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that follows at all. I think that my hon. Friend is missing the point. I have tried to explain—the figures are clear—what it costs to pay a man to do nothing, bearing in mind all the social costs involved. I have tried to explain how in many parts of the country people could be employed on the jobs for which they are trained—for instance, in the construction industry, building roads that the nation needs and creating other infrastructure which will be essential for the recovery when it comes. Meanwhile, we are allowing extra expenditure in the nationalised industries at the expense of further pressure on the rest of the economy.
  I have read the famous Stockton lecture in 1976 by my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Industry. I thought it was very good. He said very forcefully that
  "for every job preserved in British Leyland, Chrysler and other foci of highly paid outdoor relief, several jobs are destroyed up and down the country."
  He also concluded, no less significantly, that
  "monetary contraction in a mixed economy strangles the private sector unless the state sector contracts with it and reduces its take from the national income."
  That is exactly what is happening, and that is why the primary aim of our strategy must be an investment-led recovery.
  That does not mean, I believe, departing from the strategic objectives of fighting inflation or maintaining financial disciplines or sound money. On the contrary—this is where I agree with the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)—in certain circumstances the £10·5 billion estimate of the PSBR next year may turn out to be much worse because of wrongful and wasteful spending. It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that all spending will increase the PSBR.
  Accepting, as I do, that the curse of debt is worse than the curse of tax, I agree that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is right to say that the PSBR cannot just be allowed to rise. Of course it is, like M3, now described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade as "a wayward mistress", not an exact economic measurement. We could argue whether we should focus on the real PSBR or the nominal version. Some people want to take things out of the PSBR. These are not side

  67
  issues, but in the present circumstances we should accept, without having an inquest about past errors, that the Budget has to be tough and that that is inevitable and essential. Of course, toughness in itself is not a wonderful thing. It is better to be weakly right than toughly wrong.
  Against the current background of national expenditure and debt, a shift in the burden of tax from the commercial and industrial sector to the personal sector is inevitable. The Chancellor's dilemma is that all taxation to some extent depresses demand still further and so aggravates the recession. That is a matter not of political morality but of political judgment. In present circumstances, I accept—we have only the Chancellor's estimates by which he must be bound and which we shall judge in a year's time—that my right hon. and learned Friend's judgment is right and that, to keep the PSBR at £10·5 billion, an extra £3.5 billion must be taken out in taxation. It is better for industry that we should continually reduce interest rates than that we should do some of the other things that it wants but which we may not be able to afford.
  There is still the question of what is the fairest and least damaging way to apportion the £3·5 billion. I cannot believe those stories that the members of the Cabinet have had no general discussion of economic strategy. That would be incredible. It would be such a dereliction of duty on their part as to be unbelievable, bearing in mind that they have and cannot escape a collective responsibility for the strategy. However, different considerations apply to the precise way in which my right hon. and learned Friend builds up his package. Traditionally and necessarily, he bears a unique personal responsibility for that package, a responsibility that no one will envy. On the other hand, one must assume that the Cabinet knew at least as much as the rest of the House about what was in the package since virtually every detail was leaked, for the third successive time, to the press. I suppose that one can say that if the Cabinet did not know what was happening, the Treasury must have leaked the details.
  Much of the package as it applies to small businesses is warmly to be welcomed. As for the rest, every one of us, told to take £3·5 billion out of the economy in taxation, would construct a different package. There are a number of issues about which I feel concerned and to which other hon. Members have referred. I mention only two. First, there is the windfall tax on bank profits. It is politically objectionable and likely to be damaging in practice. I cannot understand why a Government who do not like legislation that confers a retrospective benefit and remedies an injustice such as that which occurred under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 should nevertheless think it constitutionally acceptable to impose retrospective taxation of the kind that we as a party have always—at any rate in Opposition—thoroughly deplored.
  If the banks have made profits, they have done so because of the Government's policy of high interest rates. I have said in the House that for a time money-lending became almost the only profitable business. It was a lawful business, however, and it is arguable that the banks now need those profits, which tend to be cyclical in their operation and which will fall with the fall in interest rates, in order to help to finance small businesses into better times.
  I am as concerned as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the effects in rural areas of the 20p petrol
  68
  increase. I am particularly concerned about the increase in the price of derv, which appears counter-productive from any point of view. I am reminded that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, when in Opposition, said of the Labour Government's proposal to increase the price by 5·5p that the tax
  "is deliberately biased against those who have no option about the method by which they travel to work; it is deliberately biased against those living in rural areas."
  People in rural areas are already, in effect, surcharged by the fact that petrol is dearer at small rural garages. In many areas like my constituency, there is simply no alternative means of transport—neither bus nor rail. This may be another example of the Treasury's lack of understanding of the different conditions that prevail in the northern part of the kingdom from those in that part of the country, where the occupants of the Treasury normally reside, between Haywards Heath and Watford.
  If I do not vote against this proposal tonight, it is because I hope that the Chancellor will have second thoughts. Perhaps he will modify it. Perhaps he will introduce a differential rate of duty or a rebate in different parts of the country. No one would travel from London to Northumberland to get a cheap gallon of petrol. I accept—it follows from what I have said already— that if my right hon. and learned Friend makes such a modification he might have to consider what further taxation is necessary elsewhere to balance the equation.
  Perhaps it would be right to put a little more on income tax. After all, we were quite clear that we had two priorities—to cut income tax in the life of the Parliament and to keep down tax thresholds. I think that it is right to break away from index linking on the tax thresholds, just as it is wrong for my right hon. and learned Friend, having broken one index link, to go for another in the gilt-edged market, which may bring other troubles. We should recognise that if the Chancellor brings down the petrol tax he may have to do something elsewhere.
  I end with a few words of comfort from the chairman of the Conservative Party, who made some observations that were widely circulated on 26 February. He said in a letter:
  "In politics the pace at which you move matters almost as much as the direction."
  In that context, it might have been better to move a little more slowly on abandoning the index linking of the tax threshold. There should have been some uplift this year. I am not encouraged by the fact that the Financial Secretary has chosen this ill-timed moment to suggest that there may be a reduction in income tax, before we have even got round the difficulties of the present impositions.
  It is difficult to challenge the general Budget judgment. The strategy is a collective Government responsibility, with the Chancellor holding responsibility for individual aspects. Again, I am comforted by the chairman of the Conservative Party, who wrote:
  "Of course we have adjusted policies in accordance with the weight of the huge recession which has developed in the world outside."
  The House can be sure that we shall do so again.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. R. B. Cant: I left school in 1933, when the number of unemployed was almost 3 million. I never really believed that I should live to see the day when that figure would almost be reached again.

  69
  I wish to recall an incident of which I have been reminded partly by the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) and partly by the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). When I was the secretary of a local society I was successful in inviting two speakers—Mr. Harold Macmillan and the late Aneurin Bevan—to debate the famous theme "Is there a middle way?" I forget the answer that was given then. I am not sure whether we have yet decided what is the middle way. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that he believes that the Government have discarded total allegiance to the concept of money supply. I am not sure about that. We are in the grip of a number of monetary fanatics who have far from discarded that concept.
  I became a Member of the House in 1966, and I am amazed when trying to trace the history of what happened to both sides of the House in respect of the doctrines of Milton Friedman. I well remember that a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now a member of the Council for Social Democracy, Mr. Roy Jenkins, became a sudden convert to Friedman. I remember saying to him that he should not try to balance the balance of payments and the Budget in the course of one year. It may be that the Labour side of the House suffered in 1970 because he came so close to that objective. There was then the dash for freedom by the Conservative Government, which landed them in a spot of bother and led to the return of a Labour Government.
  I was in favour of monetarism, which I regard as politically neutral. In November 1974 I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) whether he would set monetary targets. He said that they did not exist. After a visit from the International Monetary Fund he came round to the point of view, with a fair measure of fanaticism, that money counted.
  Mr. Rippon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Professor Walters, who not long ago wrote that the trouble with monetary targets was that they were largely cosmetic and were for the benefit of foreigners?
  Mr. Cant: That comment has not registered in my memory. I am more familiar with his statement that the Government have got it all wrong—presumably he had signed his contract by then—and that the targets were too restrictive and rigid.
  As long as the Government pursue that dogma in the way that they do, Britain faces a desperate future. Monetarism is politically neutral, but it can be grossly mishandled. The Government's determination to talk in terms of inflation being the master target, that money supply is its main determinant, and that the main determinant of the money supply is the public sector borrowing requirement overlooks many facets of the problem—for example, bank borrowing that makes a massive contribution to money supply, and over which the Government have even less control than they have over the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The Government have made two fundamental errors in the pursuit of their money supply policy. First, when they took office they reduced income tax, but they had to pay for that by increasing value added tax. If any Government made one financial and psychological error of the first magnitude in their first few days in office, that was it. They pursued the policy of fighting inflation by raising
  70
  prices. We had a long string of price increases—for example, in fuel—which had a direct impact on the retail price index. Therefore, I do not know how, they thought they could persuade people not to ask for wage increases.
  As the monetary target was pursued, and as the Budget became more and more unbalanced, the rate of interest was jacked up to 17 per cent. The Government put that strategy forward as an essential tool, but the secondary consequences were enormous not only in the respects that have been mentioned but because it reinforced the value of the pound—which is strong partly because it is a petro-pound. Its strength and the high interest rates meant a massive influx of short-term money from abroad which in itself sabotaged the attempt to control the money supply. A substantial proportion of money coming in from abroad gets into the sterling M3 figure. All these contradictory policies were added and there was more disequilibrium. For example, there was enormous expenditure on unemployment.
  That brings me to the second major problem that is undermining the Government's attempt to carry through their monetary policy. Blame must be attached not to the politicians but to the Treasury for the gross underestimate of the level of unemployment that was to emerge from the operation of a strict monetary policy. In that regard I think that monetarism has been a total failure. We can leave others to determine whether that is because the principle is wrong or because it has been undermined in its operation.
  When we consider what the Chancellor should have done, we must decide whether we accept that as a consequence of what the Government have done there is or is not a deflationary gap within the economy. Despite the fact that the money supply has increased, and despite the fact that the PSBR has burgeoned as we have observed, I believe that those who argue that there is a deflationary gap of up to 2 per cent. of the GNP are right. In those circumstances, it is reasonable for the Opposition Front Bench and for anybody else to argue realistically that there is a need to increase aggregate demand within the economy. That is not going back to Keynes.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham dismissed the balance of payments factor and talked, among other things, about jumbo jets. However, the balance of payments was Britain's major restraint for decades. It is always a major restraint, and more so than inflation. If we have not a balance of payments problem and if we live unto ourselves, we can please ourselves about the level of inflation. That will have an effect on distribution of output. We have a substantial balance of payments surplus which is recession-induced. As a result, we can tolerate without any problem of inflation rearing its ugly head any increase in domestic aggregate demand that will increase the level of imports.
  Another major constraint is the PSBR. This is where we usually begin to throw our hands in the air, although having listened to the Chancellor and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I may say that the magic of figures disappears somewhat into the distance. I have said for many years that the problem is not the weight of the PSBR in terms of the GNP but that of financing it.
  I congratulate the Chancellor on seeking new instruments of finance. I shall not bother about "granny" bonds and savings of that sort. However, I have for a long

  71
  time been an advocate of index-linked gilts with restricted issue to pension funds. During 1976, at one of the usual meetings of Members of Parliament, merchant bankers and heads of pension funds, I asked "Would you accept index-linking plus 2 per cent?" Those concerned said that they would settle for that. That seems to be the sensible approach. I do not see any difficulty in that, although if the Lex column in the Financial Times is to be believed the Government have messed it all up again.
  The pension funds are facing a future of uncertainty because they have massive power without responsibility. We must find a way of altering the present balance, otherwise my Left-wing friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), will want to introduce nationalisation measures. I merely say that there is no real problem in the approach that I have suggested, and that we can leave the technicians to determine the number of billions that make up the right figure.
  The United Kingdom, especially the private industrial sector, is in a desperate situation. All the talk of coming off the bottom about now is rubbish. That will not happen until the end of the year at the very earliest.
  The Government should have chosen one of three options. They should have reduced the interest rate more than they did with the object of reducing the dollar-sterling rate to at least $2 to the pound. That would have been helpful for interest rates and would have led to an equally reasonable consequence. It seems that the Government are prepared to accept inflation as a consequence of their proposals. It is clear that they are prepared to put 2 per cent. on the RPI. A reduction in the dollar-sterling rate would have discouraged costlier imports and would have given manufacturers the fillip to export that they will need this year.
  The Government have said that there will be a decline in imports. If we wish to avoid that, the Government could make a substantial reduction in indirect taxes and so add to aggregate demand without inflation. For example, VAT could have been reduced by 25 per cent. I favour the suggestion that the Chancellor should have said "The Budget this year is for industry." Private industry has suffered. It is a massive source of wealth for the nation and the Chancellor should have taken the risk, if risk it is, of taking action to assist it. There is no doubt that there would have been a public investment spin-off. I should have gone for a reimposition of the accelerated investment scheme. The Government have missed a marvellous opportunity by failing to take action.
  I must have been in a masochistic mood when I denied myself the great pleasure and enlightenment of listening to the Chancellor deliver his Budget Statement. I watched the television programme. Alan Lord, the former Treasury man and now head of Dunlop Holdings, was a little alarmed as he listened to the imposition of the indirect taxes. The Chancellor then spoke about the need to help industry. We received the crumbs from the table—help for small businesses, assistance with energy costs, and so on. He said to Peter Oppenheimer, the economist, that they were still waiting for the big numbers. Those big numbers represented the help which private industry expected the Government to give them through the Budget, but it never came. Those gentlemen were left looking into a deflationary void.
  72
  We should sometimes remember Churchill's statement that he would not preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. The Government are in fact presiding over the liquidation of British industry. The time has come to call a halt.
  7.41 pm
  Sir William Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). I do not agree with him that we should reduce VAT by 25 per cent. That would add over £3,000 million to the PSBR.
  Various speakers have treated our economic situation as if it occurred only in May 1979. One must take each Budget in conjunction with the others. If one looks back to 1979, three things made this Government's job more difficult. The first was that there was rising inflation when the Government took over. When there is rising inflation, it is difficult to turn it down. Secondly—the Opposition should not be allowed to forget this—the number of postdated cheques left for the Government to pick up put us a little off course. Thirdly, when we took over there was a world recession and it was increasing in severity.
  I welcome the Budget, although I have some reservations about parts of it. Various speakers have referred to the PSBR. It is easy to ask whether it should be 4 per cent. of the gross domestic product, 6 per cent. or whatever. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) hit the nail on the head when he said that the national debt today was just over £1,000 million. I remind hon. Members that the servicing of the national debt next year will cost £11,000 million. If I put that in ordinary financial figures, it means that the interest which the Government of this country are paying on the national debt is about £20,000 for every minute of every day, including Saturdays and Sundays. When hon. Members talk blandly about increasing the PSBR, that is nonsense. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to cut borrowing by £3·5 billion. Everyone knows that one must decide either to print the money or to tax to cut the PSBR.
  That is the reason for the £3½ billion increase in taxation. I remind hon. Members that that is on indirect taxes. Tobacco and alcohol have not been indexed for some time. Whisky is cheaper to drink now than it was in 1975. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not wrong to increase the duty on tobacco, spirits, and alcohol. The same principle applies to petrol. I do not like the increase of 20p on petrol, nor do I like the increase on tobacco or drink. However, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to find the money, where can he find it? Hon. Members will remember that in our manifesto we went to the country on the principle that the emphasis of taxation would be switched from direct taxation—that is, PAYE—to indirect taxation. That is a continuation of what we promised. Other goods which we need for living have gone up in price. I cannot see why alcohol, tobacco and petrol should not go up.
  Some of my hon. Friends may find that unpalatable. I know that it is difficult to face such an increase in rural areas. However, if the revenue is not obtained from petrol, the PSBR will go up, the national debt will increase and that would be a further millstone around the necks of future generations.
  I have a reservation about bank profits. The Government have taken a retrograde step and are

  73
  penalising success. I have no vested interest in banks except that I have a bank account. However, it is wrong to think that all bank profits come from the increase in the MLR or the interest rates. A great proportion of bank profits come from overseas activities. That is a success story for the banks. My right hon. and learned Friend said that that was once and for all. How many of us have heard about "once and for all" before? When income tax was introduced, it was to be once and for all.
  I understand that the banks have agreed to a 20 per cent. guarantee on the loan guarantee system, where the Government guarantees the other 80 per cent. The banks guaranteed that before they knew that the windfall profit tax would be imposed. The banks have told me that they have a ratio of 15:1 for lending. If they pay £400 million in tax, their lending potential will be decreased by about £6 billion. I would have preferred it if my righ hon. and learned Friend had doubled or increased the betting and gaming tax. We dealt with tobacco, spirits and petrol, but we should have done something about the betting and gaming tax.
  In the coming year the Chancellor of the Exchequer must closely consider the indexation of social benefits. I am not speaking about the retirement pension, but the indexation—albeit at 9 per cent.—of social benefits. The country cannot afford to continue that. The person who is working is dependent upon the profitability of his firm and he may obtain a 2, 4 or 5 per cent. increase in his income, whereas social benefits receive a tax-free increase of about 9 per cent.
  That leads me to another reservation which I have about the Budget, which is the £1 billion of index-linked bonds which the Government will issue. I do not know whether that is the thin end of the wedge of the Scott report. That report recommended that, whereas civil servants and some members of the public sector received inflation-proof pensions, those pensions should not be taken away but the private sector should have similar pensions. I hope that that is not the thin end of the wedge because if the pension funds in the private sector buy those bonds and more bonds are on offer, eventually the pension funds will be invested in the main in those indexed bonds under the control of the Government.
  That has two dangers. The first is that nationalisation would be easy. If the bulk of the pension funds were with the Government, nationalisation could be carried out at the stroke of a pen. Secondly, the Government would be able to borrow their money much more easily. That is bad for any Government. Index-linked bonds are a bad thing. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say something about the bonds and about the Government's attitude to the Scott report. The Government must grasp the nettle. The taxpayer cannot continue fully to inflation-proof pensions in the public sector while people in the private sector, who are supplying the money, have only 3 or 4 per cent. inflation-proofing in their pension schemes.
  As an aside, I hope that the Government will stand firm on the Civil Service strike. With an inflation-proofed pension, a guaranteed job and good holidays, I do not understand why, when they are offered 7 per cent.—and many people in the private sector are offered much less—the civil servants are striking. I hope that the Government will not succumb to blackmail.
  I, too, welcome the relief for small businesses—removing corporation tax, the VAT threshold and the start-up provision. The provision for investing
  74
  £10,000 in a new business will have a dramatic and dynamic effect on the setting up of companies. There is also the 2 per cent. reduction in MLR.
  I take issue with those who say that nothing has been done for larger businesses. Under the stock relief scheme, £450 million is being given as an encouragement to big business. That is no mean sum. Large users of gas and electricity also get the advantage of a further £120 million, which makes a total of £570 million. Labour Members may say that the 2 per cent. drop in MLR and the other measures are not sufficient. However, if we accept the premise that we must stop spending money that we do not have, we realise that we must cut our coat according to the cloth.
  When the exchange rate was low, big business complained; when it is high, it complains. Where do we go from there? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) dealt very adequately with the rubbish that is spoken about the exchange rate. How does one manipulate the exchange rate? Should the Government, with taxpayers' money, buy foreign currency and sell sterling? That has not worked in the past. Although sterling is strong, at $2.20, $2.22 or $2.25 to the pound, our exports have kept up remarkably well. The deutschemark has been a strong currency for many years. I do not remember the Germans complaining that they could not export. Why should we complain? The only way that we could have a drop in our exchange rate—and this may appeal to some Opposition Members—is with a change of Government. The disaster that would result would certainly bring down the exchange rate. No one in his right mind believes that that is the right way to proceed.
  The Government have much to do. We must increase our competitiveness. Our economic survival depends on more action over restrictive practices, the closed shop and the monopoly position of some trade unions—although those matters are not the direct responsibility of the Chancellor. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will deal with nationalised industries with vigour. We have for a long time stated that we should sell this, that and the other, but there has always been the excuse that this is not the profitable time to do so. Let us sell convertible debentures and deferred preference shares, with the underlying asset value as the sale price and with the conversion showing the profitability that must come about. Nationalised industries are ripe for a more vigorous approach in disposing of certain sectors. They are too greatly favoured. Over-manning is manifest in the public sector. Everything comes from the taxpayer, such as generous redundancy payments and pensions, which private enterprise cannot afford. That aspect must be tackled.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team have an almost impossible job in controlling expenditure. The Budget is agreed at the beginning of the year, and that is it. There is no monitoring of how the money is spent within each Department—and I do not single out any particular Department. The Treasury should adopt the practice used in industry and have a finance Minister m each spending Department eventually responsible to the Chancellor.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham. We need a differentiation between current expenditure—revenue expenditure—and capital expenditure. However, we must be careful, if we

  75
  concentrate on monitoring capital expenditure, that revenue expenditure does not remain at its present high level. We need to take a sharp Geddes axe to current expenditure.
  I welcome the help given in the Budget to families, the disabled and charities, which gives the lie to those who would suggest that the Conservative Party is not a caring party. The help given to one-parent families, child benefit and the help given to disabled people disproves that. However, the best help that we can give to anyone is to conquer inflation. Inflation is coming down, and will come down even further.
  We should not be gloomy and believe that all our troubles began in May 1979. The Government inherited world recession and many other messes. We must continue our strategy and not change course. We are on the right road. I am convinced that the economy will pick up. When the recession ends, with the cut in Government spending and the increase in economic activity—which will help to increase the country's revenue—we shall be able to reduce taxation. I welcome this "sound money" Budget.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and others who argue that we should not change course remind me of the old joke about the Irishman who had just managed to get his horse used to going without food and water when, unfortunately, the horse died. That is happening with the Government's policies.
  The hon. Gentleman said that some people felt that we should have a change of Government, but that right-minded people did not think so. I have news for him. Millions of right-minded people in this country are anxiously waiting for a change of Government. If the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends feel so confident about their policies, they should test them at the polls.
  This is the Government's third Budget and the most disastrous yet. Three aspects must be emphasised. First, it is a massively deflationary Budget. Secondly, because of that, it is bound to lead to further unemployment. The prospect of more than 3 million unemployed is no longer mythical. It now seems almost certain. Thirdly, the low paid and those on low incomes are especially hit by the Government's policies.
  It is not only the low paid who are hit by the Budget. Anyone who read the interesting series of articles on the effects of the Budget in The Sunday Times Business News yesterday knows that those in the higher income bracket will be clobbered equally. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] It is relative. Those with very high incomes are clobbered more in money terms, but in real terms those with lower incomes are hurt more, especially by the increase in indirect taxation, which is the most regressive taxation.
  We are told that there is more coming. The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that we needed a Geddes axe. I do not know whether Conservative Members were worried by that. I am sure that some of them were very worried when the Financial Secretary said on television yesterday that further cuts in public expenditure are being considered by the Government and are likely to come in the autumn. Is that not a Geddes axe? Is that not what happened in the depression?
  76
  If there is an increase in public expenditure, as there has been precisely because unemployment benefit has to be paid out, how and where can the Government cut back? My guess is that one area in which there will be further cuts—there are already cuts in real terms—will be in unemployment, sickness and other benefits. That is what happened in the 1930s. The Government's concept is that the crisis has to be solved at the expense of ordinary working people by cutting back on public expenditure in that way.
  Those who read this morning's article in The Guardian by Francis Cripps and Wynne Godley know that they were not exaggerating in saying that this is
  "A Budget that will produce a hyper-slump such as Britain has not seen before".
  That is clear, quite apart from the speeches that we have heard from the wets and the super-wets. Even the drys are now joining us. Others are wet or dry on different occasions. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that Conservative Members have sufficient courage to speak out on these matters.
  Some of us used to do that regularly when the Labour Party was in Government. We also translated our words into action, although not always into votes, I admit. On occasion, whole rows of us would remain in our seats when we felt that the issues made it necessary to do so. I would never suggest, of course, that Conservative Members should oppose their Government in the Lobby, but if they were to follow the example that we used to set I am sure that it would be in the interests of the country.
  Most of the press this weekend, whether Tory or not, gave the Government a real go-along, to use a Liverpool expression. We also read the Chancellor's defence of the Budget. What a pathetic piece of writing it was. I do not refer merely to its literary value, although that was not very good either. I cannot imagine anyone reading that defence of the Budget proposals and being convinced that the Chancellor was making a serious case.
  While talking about the Chancellor, I would make one further comment. When I first came to the House, when we had serious debates here, those speaking for the Front Bench actually attended the debates. Nowadays, Ministers are so arrogant that they do not regard it as necessary even to listen to their own hon. Friends who may have criticisms to make. That attitude ought to be changed. The Minister of State should tell the Chancellor that if he is to reply he should be in his place and listen to what is said in the debate.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He is hiding away.
  Mr. Heffer: This is a debating chamber. The people expect Ministers to listen to what their representatives say. It is disgraceful that such an attitude should have developed. On the strategy adopted by the Government, I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Blackpool on Saturday. He said that some people believed that we should get rid of the Chancellor, but that was not the solution. He was suggesting not that we should retain the Chancellor, but that the real villain was the Prime Minister. Not only is the Prime Minister the real villain; every Minister who goes along with this policy is part of the villainy. If they are really determined to fight this, they had better either make a quick change or get out of the Government so as not to be responsible for the policies that are being pursued.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell us about Liverpool, Eric.
  Mr. Heffer: I was about to come to the effect of the Budget on Merseyside. We all know the present situation on Merseyside. It is an industrial disaster area. The unemployment rate is 16 per cent. throughout Merseyside. I am not talking just about the city of Liverpool, but about the whole of Merseyside which includes some areas where there are no industries at all. There is no hope for those workers. Certainly, there is no hope for them in the Budget. On the contrary, they will now be faced with further redundancies and more unemployment.
  The future is bleak, not only for the youth—although it is particularly bleak for them—but also for workers who have spent perhaps 30 or 35 years working for the same firm and who suddenly find themselves out of work. That is a traumatic experience. I was a building worker, so I am used to unemployment, although not for long periods. Nevertheless, I knew what it was like to get my cards and to have to look for another job. It was part of my industry. But I often think of the worker who has been in the same job for 30 years or more, bringing up his children, with his mortgage, his small car, and so on, suddenly finding that the bottom of his world has dropped out. There is no future, no hope, no work, and it is no good looking to other parts of the country for employment because there is none. Therefore, the Government's policy is disastrous for people such as those who live in my area. The trouble is that their policy is basically wrong.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said that the Government were mesmerised by the PSBR. In my opinion, they have elevated it into a phallic symbol which I find quite obscene and disgraceful. It is high time that they stopped worshipping such a symbol.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) rightly pointed out that the Government's proposal for the construction industry was minimal, that it did not add up to a row of beans. The Chancellor said that it was sensible to remove unnecessary obstacles to developments in the industry. That is reasonable as far as it goes, but the sector which the Government could truly have helped is house building, whose plight is as bad as it has ever been. In fact, the programme in that sector for 1981–82 has been cut by 12½ per cent. compared with 1980–81; by 40 per cent. compared with Labour's last year in office; and by more than 60 per cent. compared with 1975–76. Yet thousands of construction workers are out of work and thousands more people have gone on housing waiting lists and suffer all sorts of problems because they do not have homes of their own.
  The construction industry needs not the tinkering that the Government have produced but an enhanced building programme, particularly for public housing. We need a much more positive programme for building factories, through local authorities, the Department of Industry and other agencies.
  Incidentally, I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) shall have had a go at my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about his sensible proposals for these industries. These are labour-intensive industries. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would be happy to accept such assistance for Northern Ireland. I am sure that every other hon. Member would like such assistance for his area.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I just wanted to know where the money would be obtained from.
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman must know that we have been arguing that the entire strategy needs to be changed. If one is tied to a narrow monetarist concept, one will always take the view that there is never a chance of finding the money.
  Mr. Tim Eggar: Answer the question.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman does not have to shout. I do not normally shout at the hon. Gentleman. If he wants that sort of conflict, we can have it. I have been explaining—
  Mr. Eggar: The alternative strategy.
  Mr. Heffer: I have not mentioned the alternative strategy. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to explain Labour's alternative strategy in detail, I am quite happy to do so. For his benefit, I have a three-page, 10-point policy which outlines the alternative strategy. But I have a sneaking feeling that as I have already taken up a lot of time, the hon. Gentleman and the House would not take too kindly to my explaining it. In the short term, the money will be found by a change in economic strategy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Spell it out".] I cannot spell it out in one sentence.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: More taxes.
  Mr. Heffer: If need be, part of it would come from more taxes. No one should shy away from the fact that part of a new economic strategy would comprise more taxes, particularly taxes from those in society who can afford to pay, rather than from those who cannot afford to pay, which is what is happening now.
  Mr. Eggar rose——
  Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a short debate.
  Mr. Eggar: How much money?
  Mr. Heffer: Some Conservative Members do not always treat these matters with the seriousness they deserve. We are talking about millions of working people out of work, and we are talking about trying to get the economy right. Conservative Members get serious only when they find that their own companies and interests are involved. Then some of them scream their heads off. We are not concerned with individual companies. We are concerned with the people and with the country's economy. We are concerned about what the Government are doing to them, which is utterly disastrous.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Many of us had great sympathy with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when he referred to the levels of unemployment in his constituency. They are bad enough in my own, but by no stretch of the imagination, thank heavens, do they compare with those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, he does not help his case when he produces woolly solutions and refuses to answer entirely reasonable questions.
  It would have been a hard-hearted, insensitive or prejudiced person who would not have had a great deal of sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he set

  79
  about preparing his Budget. Granted, and much to the Government's credit, inflation is running at half the level of last summer, but otherwise the outlook was anything but rosy. I at least did not entertain the highest of hopes with regard to the Budget. More than usual, it seemed to me that it would have to be based on an assessment of risks and judgments of the lesser of two evils. Almost for sure it was likely to hit at consumption, and if that was to make it an unpopular Budget it had to be accepted as one consequence of the world recession and current conditions.
  Nevertheless, I had hoped that the Budget would contain some imaginative initiatives which would have provided dividends for the country in the future, and which would have provided recognition that the Government have a role in the creation of healthier domestic conditions. I regret that it does not contain those initiatives and that my assessment of risks and judgments of the lesser of evils does not coincide more precisely with that of the Chancellor's.
  Of course, I congratulate the Chancellor on what he has done for the disabled, and I am glad that he has again set about doing more for small businesses. I shall refer briefly to them again in a few moments. Otherwise I find little in the Budget about which I can be very happy. Given the limitation of public transport and the unavoidable needs of country people, commuters—we should not forget the needs of commuters—road transport and all manner of businesses, 20p on petrol and dery seems excessive. More important, I am very distressed that in this year—for the first time for 10 years—there is to be no increase in personal allowances.
  I accept that it might not have been possible to go the whole way to meet the Rooker-Wise requirement. Nevertheless, on the basis of the lesser of two evils, and contrary to my own advice in a letter to the Chancellor published in The Times only three weeks ago—when I had no idea of the extent to which he intended to increase taxation—in my view now it would have been preferable to put 3p on the standard rate of income tax. That would have produced about £2·3 billion. As a result, the Chancellor could have limited his petrol and dery increase to 10p—just about the maximum that would have been acceptable to the public at large—and he could have used the remaining £1,700 million to increase allowances by about 10 per cent.
  This rejigging of tax increases would have been fairer to car users, fairer to businesses, and fairer to those on lower incomes who are just in, or who will soon come into, the tax bracket, and who are affected by this increase in taxation. I doubt whether an increase in income tax would have been popular, but it certainly would have spread the tax load more fairly.
  It is the lack of a positive side to the Budget that worries me most. The understandable but obsessional concern about inflation, and the threat it poses for employment prospects, seems to have erased very largely, if not entirely, any thought that deflation is just as capable of causing unemployment. I know that the Chief Secretary said last week'
  "I do not think that it can remotely be described as deflationary".—[Official Report, 11 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 920.]
  80
  But his view and that of other Treasury Ministers does not seem to be shared by much of industry.
  I should also like to point out, following remarks made earlier, that the levy to be imposed upon the banks in itself can be deflationary, given that it can give rise to a reduction in lending of up to £6 billion.
  But whether or not the Budget causes an extra 200,000 or more to become unemployed, as some commentators have claimed, at my most optimistic I cannot see that it will do anything to reduce or stabilise the present horrifyingly high level of unemployment. For that to happen, it seems that we have to await the assumed benefits of the laissez faire industrial policy, coupled with an end to the recession. But that seems to be nineteenth century stuff which is not very much in accord with Conservative philosophy, and never has been. In any case, who can be sure that the recession is near its end? There is no certainty about it.
  I regret enormously that the Budget misses a necessary and Heaven-sent opportunity to start the development of a new partnership with industry, as exists in many of our competitor countries. I regret that it contains no industrial package, and I regret that it has done so little to contain unemployment.
  The reduction in minimum lending rate undoubtedly will be a help, but it is only of marginal relief if the order book is empty. Thus, like others who have spoken in the debate—notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—I should have liked to see the Government initiate a programme of capital investment in roads, railways, housing, telecommunications and other basic national requirements.
  At one and the same time, such a programme would be of great help to the private sector in the short term, and in the immediate term it would help to put our country into a more competitive position when eventually the world recession ends. Such an approach would do more than anything else also to assist small businesses, because most small businesses exist to provide services or components for big businesses.
  No doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has said, much could be done through the City of London and the private sector, but if there has to be some lubrication or stimulus from Government, why not, even if it gives rise to some expense?
  I wonder whether a PSBR of £10½ billion is definitely right in present conditions. In his powerful defence of the Budget on Wednesday—as good a speech as he could have possibly made in the circumstances, if I may rather presumptuously say so—the Chief Secretary referred to the possibility of a "massively inflationary reflation". If a PSBR of £10½ billion is not inflationary, I find it difficult to believe that a PSBR of £11 billion or £12 billion would be massively inflationary. Least of all can I believe that if account is taken of the industrial output that it could stimulate and the unemployment costs that it could save.
  It is for me a source of constant amazement that the Government are apparently prepared to lash out more and more money in unemployment benefit, to no purpose and for no return, and yet a battle royal is needed to persuade them to use a little money for any constructive purposes which might reduce unemployment costs—costs which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has pointed out, could be as high as £15 billion next year.

  81
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has done very well with his development of the special temporary employment programme, the youth opportunities programme and the community industries programme. But, looking into the future, the manpower need of manufacturing industry is bound to fall steadily with the introduction of new technology. I doubt whether the service industries will make up for the loss of jobs, even with a major expansion in leisure industries, as I believe there should be and probably will be. Thus, the Government must also consider extending the job release scheme in the short term, and they will have to give much more careful consideration to the possibility of lowering the age of retirement for men in the longer term.
  Given that in the end we are concerned with people rather than book-keeping, if a risk has to be taken by the Chancellor, it should be on behalf of people rather than on behalf of the books. Yet the Chancellor seems to have opted for the latter, and in doing so the danger of the creation of an industrial desert in this country has been brought nearer.
  This has been a disappointing Budget, and a Budget of lost opportunity. I will leave the Chancellor with one thought. Deserts may look very tidy. Sometimes, even, they may be very beautiful, so long as one is only a visitor to them. But if one wants anything to grow in them, one does not need a flood, because that could sweep everything away, but a modicum of wetness is needed, and it is largely up to the Government to provide the irrigation.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) was critical of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. I sympathise with much of what he said. He began by sympathising with the fact that the Chancellor faced such a daunting task. He remarked that the Government had succeeded in reducing the rate of inflation. Although the Government have reduced inflation to a level that is several points above that found when the Conservative Party took office, they have nevertheless, reduced it. Indeed, the fact that they have done so forms a major part of the Government's propaganda and publicity.
  Given the Government's theories, how have they managed to lower the rate of inflation? I have never received a satisfactory explanation. In what sense is the reduction of inflation related to their strategy? We are told that inflation is caused by an accelerating growth in the money supply. However, that is precisely what we have experienced. I am puzzled. On what basis can the Government claim that they are responsible for reducing inflation to a level that is slightly above that at which they came into power?
  I was also interested when the hon. Gentleman spoke about creating a desert. A famous author said that the Romans created a desert and called it peace. I do not know what the Chancellor thinks he has created, but it is nothing like peace. In the 1980s the British economy will face a dangerous situation. The Government also claim to have cut interest rates. Presumably, they want to reduce interest rates to assist industry. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and other spokesmen repeatedly told us that it was impossible to cut interest rates before the public sector borrowing requirement had been reduced. How can the Chancellor cut the interest rate for the second time in a year when the public sector
  82
  borrowing requirement has not been reduced? Nevertheless, the purpose of the reduction in interest rates appears to be to assist industry. Indeed, the problems of some firms have been alleviated to some degree.
  Recently, an industrialist in my constituency commented that reduced interest rates were hardly any help to his firm. Like many medium and large-sized companies, his company had had to borrow large sums of money to fund redundancy payments to one-quarter of those employed when the Conservative Party came into power. It is unrealistic to pretend that cutting the interest rate will enable such companies to invest more or to restock. A company will invest and stock up in the expectation of a future market. However, a direct consequence of this deflationary Budget will be to dissuade companies from doing the very things that the Government desire. If manufacturing industry is to operate successfully, it needs markets. However, that same industrialist told me that his company finds that the home market is virtually dead. As a result of energy prices and the high value of the pound, the export market, on which that company is heavily dependent, has virtually disappeared. Indeed, over 40 per cent. of that company's products were destined for export markets.
  The CBI and business men to whom I have spoken have not described the Budget as helpful. When the Conservative Party first came into office it advanced the argument that British industry should become more competitive. The Government argued that one consequence of an inflationary Budget, or of an inflationary economic policy, was that private industry became uncompetitive and ceased to be careful about costs. They argued that industry was wasteful and inattentive to its markets. During the first few months of this Government's period of office local industrialists in my constituency commented that the Government's initial economic policy was having a healthy effect on industry and was forcing industry to be more competitive and responsive to home and overseas markets. Contrary to the Government's other policies, many argued that it would have a beneficial effect on British industry. That perfectly respectable argument was put forward by industrialists and Conservative Members.
  But we have now passed the point at which industry was becoming more competitive. In consequence of the more stringent economic policies being pursued by the Government, there is now a severe danger of a collapse of business confidence. Industrialists in my constituency are beginning to wonder whether there is any purpose in staying in business at all. That is the view of effective business men and companies.
  I can accept the argument that a stringently run economic policy has the effect of driving out of business uncompetitive and inefficient firms or, alternatively, of persuading them to be more effective and responsive to the markets that they are trying to serve. But we have gone beyond that purpose now.
  The situation is becoming very dangerous. An industrialist in my constituency, in a letter to me, said:
  "The budget appears to have totally ignored the considerable strain on management at all levels to try and hold their business together in a dramatically declining market and the strain on workers, for whom there is little job security. A more sensitive budget would have given some hope—this one gave no hope of any improvement and is looked on as another step in creating art industrial desert."

  83
  That is a most devastating criticism of the Budget. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a no-hope Budget. It is destructive of British industry and of some of our finest firms, both large and medium sized. Whatever help we can give to small firms is to be welcomed. Having had responsibility for that sector in the Department of the Environment in the Labour Government, I welcome such help. However, it will be as nothing if the large and medium sized firms, to which small firms are often the suppliers, collapse and thus provide no markets for their products. The Budget will strike a severe blow at business confidence, at any hope of an increased level of investment and at any possibility of long term planning of the kind that we must have to revive our economy.
  I have so far been talking about manufacturing industry. However, the Estates Times, which I think is sent to all hon. Members, carries a front page article headed:
  "Sir Geoffrey's silver lining for property world."
  I want to read the first couple of paragraphs, because they illustrate the degree to which the property world stands to benefit and manufacturing stands to be severely affected. It states:
  "In one of the most helpful Budgets the property world has experienced for years, Chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe has given developers a series of fiscal boosts involving development land tax and industrial building allowances.
  While most of British industry licks its wounds in the aftermath of Tuesday's statement, generally aimed at helping small businesses, property men are taking comfort from the unexpected measures which will encourage more building and refurbishment."
  Good luck to them. But I am very worried about the state of manufacturing industry. The Budget can do nothing but damage. I can understand the dismay and concern of Conservative Members. I have deliberately said nothing about the policies that the Labour Party would want to pursue if it were in power. I have tried to point to the damage that is likely to be caused by the Government's policies. Therefore, as I said, I can well understand the dismay of Conservative Members.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House today, because this is the first occasion on which a Member from Scotland has been able to say something in the Chamber about the Budget. I note particularly that the two hon. Members who represent constituencies under the label of Scottish nationalists have not seen fit to be in their places all day today.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) are two Members who took the trouble to mention this afternoon the question of the fuel tax. I draw the attention of the House to one of many hundreds of telegrams which have been sent to Scottish Members on the question of the fuel tax. It says:
  "Fully support you in your attempt to remove the iniquitous and monstrous increases in the duty on fuel. These increases may be fine for south-east England but will have a disastrous effect on rural areas in Scotland."
  That says it all, in a nutshell.
  Although I accept and appreciate that the Budget contained a number of aids to the disabled, the retired and to small businesses, the decision to increase the cost of
  84
  petrol by 20p per gallon will have a devastating effect on the whole of the rural constituencies and the islands of Scotland, and on my constituency of East Aberdeenshire in particular. If 20p is added, it will mean not 149p per gallon, as is seen in London, but 165p a gallon in my area of Scotland, and in other parts it will mean 180p and 192p a gallon. That is if that minimum figure is added, although I suspect that the operators will need to add another 2p on to that price for the simple reason that, whenever a small service operator purchases his next 5,000 gallons, he will have to find a further £1,000 to do so, and he will have three days in which to do it. There is no way in which small operators are able to take that in hand at present, because of their difficulties in raising money. Therefore, the interest rates that they will have to pay will be reflected in the price. In some cases one will find that many of the smaller service stations will go out of business altogether.
  Minibus operators in Scotland who take children to school will be seriously affected. They take a contract from the local authority for a period of three years at a fixed price, after a tender. There is no way in which they can recover this iniquitous 20p. increase. One of my constituents, to whom I spoke over the weekend, advised me that the increase would amount to £500 in the year. That is much more than the profit that he would estimate making as a result of a competitive bid to the local authority. Again, this will mean that a number of these small operators will have to go out of business altogether. Then the danger will be that children will not be able to be taken to school, or their parents will be put to great bother in order to try to ferry them backwards and forwards to school at very inconvenient times for them.
  The farmers in Scotland have had a very difficult year, unlike farmers in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have heard from members of the Back Bench agricultural committee that last year farmers in England never had it so good. [Interruption.] If that is untrue, I have to accept that the hon. Members who made the comments do not know their facts. However, I can speak for farmers in Scotland, whose income, in real terms, fell by 52 per cent. last year. This increase in fuel duty will be the last straw which will break the camel's back.
  The Scottish agriculture industry has suffered severely over the last few years. The situation was desperate enough before this latest imposition, which can only lead to many farms having to be sold. In the Aberdeen mart at present there are 143 farms on the books for sale.
  The fishing industry, of which we have heard much in the House recently, both offshore and onshore industries, will not be able to withstand this increase in the price of fuel. This House is well aware of the desperate state of the fishing industry. Many of its problems can be laid at the door of the cost of fuel oil. To add a further burden to industry will lead to massive bankruptcies at a time when we who represent fishing constituencies are trying desperately to save it from extinction.
  Industry and commerce in the rural areas will suffer considerably as the impact of the 20p. a gallon increase leads to increases in the prices of all commodities and of services coming from and going into the rural areas. For many years, great endeavours have been made to repopulate the rural areas. Sadly, this crippling blow will do just the reverse. With no public transport to speak of, the loss of the minibuses and the inability of people living in rural areas to pay the increases which will be forced on

  85
  them from all quarters, we shall soon begin to see an exodus from the rural areas and islands far greater and quicker than the Highland clearances ever created.
  There must be some way that relief can be granted. It is ironic that the gas and oil from the North Sea to the mainland arrives in my constituency to feed the rest of the United Kingdom and to be exported to the benefit of the nation; yet my constituents will be the most adversely affected by this penal tax.
  Local authorities in northern areas have done their best in rating terms. In my area, the Grampian regional council increased rates by only 11p. Banff and Buchan district council did not increase its rates at all this year. Gordon district council actually had a 3p reduction in its rates.
  But what is the impact of this increase of 20p in the price of fuel likely to be? Grampian regional council will be required to find an additional £20,000 to meet increased fuel bills. Banff and Buchan district council will be required to find £10,500, and Gordon district council will have to find £9,300. How can they do this after they have fixed their budgets? There is no way in which they can find this money unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer changes his mind today and decides that there is some method by which the money can be raised other than by imposing on rural areas this iniquitous tax of 20p on the price of a gallon of petrol.
  My attention was drawn yesterday to an article in the Sunday Express by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was headed:
  "Do you think I wanted to slap 20p on petrol?"
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote:
  "That is why the tax revenue needed to balance the books has had to come from people's pockets. I have had to raise that extra money in every way possible. I should not be looking for an extra 20p on a gallon of petrol if I had been able to find a better and less unpopular alternative."
  I have a message for my right hon. and learned Friend. There are alternatives. Why not impose further levies on gambling—on all sorts of gambling?
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: One-armed bandits.
  Mr. McQuarrie: Gambling is the greatest growth industry in Britain today. Why not invade the Space Invader? This is the machine that came into the country in 1978, and now there are 70,000 of them. As I enter my airport at Aberdeen, having flown back there from this House, it is like entering the aerodrome at Las Vegas, with one-armed bandits going, right, left and centre.
  Mr. Eggar rose——
  Mr. McQuarrie: I am sorry. I cannot give way to my hon. Friend. My time is limited. It is estimated that 83 per cent. of the population are playing these Space Invaders. If my right hon. and learned Friend had decided to double the present taxation on betting and gambling, I am certain that he could have raised £510 million, equivalent to the lop per gallon which we require to reduce his proposed tax from 20p to a figure which, although still unacceptable, we would take at this stage.
  The imposition of an increase of 20p will again have a devastating effect on the cost of freight in rural areas. Vehicle excise duty will be increased by £58 million and the fuel duty by £290 million. That represents a total of £348 million, and that is to be imposed on the rural areas
  86
  and the islands. Already in my constituency it costs an extra 5 per cent. to bring in goods by road. They are the reasons for a reduction in this tax.
  I have received a letter from my former Member of Parliament, Lord Boothby. He said:
  "As you know, under the Parliament Act the House of Lords is not allowed to amend, or even to debate, the Finance Bill. But if you care to say in the constituency that I mentioned the subject and told you that if I had still been Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire I should have had no hesitation in voting against the increase in the oil duty, and that I entirely approve of what you are doing, you are welcome to do so."
  If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor cannot come to the Dispatch Box this evening and say that he will introduce an alternative to the 20p increase in the oil duty I shall follow the noble Lord's advice and vote against the measure.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), but he will forgive me if, because of the time, I do not comment on his argument. We must admit that the Budget has been a tour de force of political calculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded in uniting against him the TUC, the CBI, half the Cabinet, all the Opposition parties and many of his hon. Friends He has produced one nation overnight. Never since the grim days of the blitz has the nation shown such unity of purpose. We are witnessing a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of truly Churchillian stature in their ability to mobilise the country. At last they have galvanised the entrepreneurs if only into a chorus of anger and despair.
  The Conservative Party tricked its way into power in May 1979, promising to slash taxation, slash public expenditure by eliminating waste, yet maintaining public sector services. It promised to create an incentive society in an atmosphere wherein industry and enterprise could flourish. For the third successive Budget the Chancellor has increased the burden of taxation on the British public. After feverish attempts at reducing public expenditure, it is now a higher proportion of national output than it was under the Labour Government. It is 44½ per cent. this year and it will be 45 per cent. next year compared with only 41½ per cent. under Labour.
  Manufacturing industry is "flourishing" to such an extent that is has lost 15 per cent. of its output since May 1979. That is the greatest slump in 60 years. One million people have lost their jobs. Yet it is expected that manufacturing industry will lose a further 6 per cent. of output in the next 12 months. An additional 300,000 to 500,000 people will lose their jobs because of the Budget. It is too late to prevent the relentless rise of unemployment beyond 3 million. Indeed, the Red Book assumes that unemployment will still be at 2·7 million, excluding school leavers, two years from now.
  I was born in the North-East of England. My area has known high unemployment on and off for 60 years. I was unemployed myself for almost a year. My father was unemployed for two years in the 1930s and my father-in-law was unemployed for four years recently. The Chief Secretary represents a North-East constituency. He says that he needs no one to teach him about the vagaries of unemployment. Had he experienced prolonged unemployment himself or in his family, had he spent his life working amongst the deprived and disadvantaged, had he used all

  87
  the powers at his command to break into the cycle of despair in the urban areas of the North, he would not and could not pursue his present policies.
  Harold Macmillan's experience at Stockton in the 1930s made him a radical Tory in his day—a soppy wet by today's standards. But the hard-faced men and women in the Cabinet have not had the burden of the low-paid and the unemployed seared upon their consciences by bitter experience. That is why they weep crocodile tears while turning the screw ever tighter. We have seen the rebirth of their nineteenth-century Jerusalem, and we want none of it. Let it be swept away on the tide of anger and despair summoned up by this Budget.
  From the start, the medium-term financial strategy was misconceived and over-optimistic. The turnround in the finances of the nationalised industries was never achievable, even without the unforeseen severity of the depression. The targets for M3 and PSBR were impossibly tight, upon the admission of Professors Burns and Walters. Those over-tight targets resulted in high interest rates and the over-valued pound which, together with an inflation rate of 22 per cent., again caused largely by the doubling of VAT, were at the root of the 40 per cent. deterioration of British industry's competitiveness and the destocking of £3½ billion, the most unique feature of the depression.
  Of course, the international recession has had an effect, but nowhere else in the Western world has manufacturing output slumped by 15 per cent. and nowhere else has unemployment increased by 65 per cent. The greater part of our recession has been self-inflicted and self-induced by the Government's misconceived policies. If the so-called "excessive wage claims" of "too powerful trade unions" have had an effect, again the Government are responsible, because they had a policy to deal with the problem: free collective bargaining and control of the money supply would do the trick. But they did not do the trick, except that mass unemployment and fear became this Government's economic policy. I warn the Government that the new realism will last only as long as mass unemployment.
  At a time when British industry was pleading for respite, this half-dead sheep of a Chancellor, under orders from the Iron Shepherdess, has kicked his friends from the CBI in the teeth—no reduction in the national insurance surcharge, no reduction in the £8 a tonne fuel oil tax, no programme on capital reconstruction works, an increase in transport costs of 4 per cent., and a reduction in final demand for goods and services of some £3½ billion. A further loss of output and an increase in unemployment are inevitable. Unemployment is already costing us £8 billion. That is where our taxation is going. That is where the wealth of the North Sea is going.
  In her fanatical crusade to save the country from the evils of Socialism, the Prime Minister is summoning up the forces of the extreme Left, determined to have done with tinkering with the system that has produced 3 million unemployed, eager to sweep away any vestige of the mixed economy, disillusioned with democracy itself. By her stridency and obstinacy, she gives succour to antidemocratic forces of the Lelft and the Right. In her muscular morality, she rewrites the Gospels and even recreates God in her own image, like some female weight lifter, leaping down from the cross and using it to hammer her opponents into the ground.
  88
  Let the right hon. Lady undermine her own support. Let her bring Prime Ministerial authority into disrepute. Few believe that it will last much longer. Inevitably, sooner rather than later, perhaps when further public expenditure cuts are attempted later this year, the revolt will come. Conservative Members, cruelly described as gutless and lacking in courage and moral fibre by their leader herself, will rise up in the realisation that only a change of policy will save the country and save themselves from electoral oblivion. The right course for them is to vote with us tonight, and to use their power to inflict an historic defeat upon this arrogant, autocratic and disastrous Government.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: We have heard a number of distinguished speeches today. Apart from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) talked about the lack of demand in the economy, reminded us of the former Tory philosophy of one nation, and asked for help for industry. Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished work in setting up the Select Committees, which will be remembered in this House long after many of the misdeeds of the Government are forgotten, we were right to pay him the attention we did.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that he did not believe that the Cabinet had not discussed these economic matters. "They must have done", he said. My view is that leaks usually prove correct; if so, it is reasonable also to assume that the Cabinet is showing its desire for greater participation in the government of the country. That does not seem a wholly unreasonable request.
  Of course, when we used to run the Empire and fight various wars there were other matters to discuss than the economy. Now that our future is so largely tied up with the soluton of economic problems members of the Cabinet should be give opportunities to question the Chancellor of the Exchequer that are roughly equal to those afforded to journalists at press conferences, interviewers on television and members of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Has my right hon. Friend seen the tape tonight? It says that the extensive leaks that appeared in The Sunday Times and The Observer on the Sunday before the Budget are to be the subject of an inquiry by the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked the right hon. Lady whether she would undertake such an inquiry and she has announced that she will. Is it not strange that she does not trust her Cabinet colleagues with the Budget information, yet there is now to be an inquiry into the information that appeared in the Sunday press?
  Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to these matters. I hope that the inquiry will extend to the activities of a number of the staff at No. 10 Downing Street.
  We know, of course, that in dealing with these matters in Cabinet the Treasury and the Prime Minister will arguue the need for secrecy. That argument is based upon the need to prevent the forestalling of decisions announced by the

  89
  Chancellor. If, for example, the tax on whisky is to be increased it is necessary to forestall people making a profit from it. But the world has moved on since the nineteenth century when those conventions were introduced. Two years ago value added tax was introduced from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. That permitted open forestalling which was never before available. The furore over the VAT increase was not about the possibilities of forestalling, but rather about the extra tax that would be levied.
  Lord Armstrong, one of our great civil servants, ex-Permanent Sercretary to the Treasury and former head of the Civil Service, urged, in a famous report, the need for proper discussion of taxation and public expenditure in December each year. In that report he said:
  "The risk that advance notice of some tax changes might lead to some forestalling should not be adequate excuse for secrecy."
  Elsewhere in the report he said:
  "In other countries Budgets are commonly presented three months or more before they take effect."
  Some consider that any Budget is a beautifully tuned instrument, and that if a screw is not in a precise position, or a nail is not driven into the right place, the Budget is condemned. I do not share that view. In 1977 the Government lost a vote on the Rooker-Wise amendment which deprived the then Chancellor of £1,000 million of his Budget judgment. The increase in petrol duty was changed by a decision of the House, asserting its right to control expenditure and revenue. Far from all the calamities which are predicted in such an eventuality, the Chancellor, the Treasury and the country were available to live with the consequences of those actions.
  A Chancellor can come to live with any changes in the Budget strategy. His Budget judgment is based upon a large number of forces, and on many of those the House of Commons can hold a view that deserves as much respect
  In this Budget, as in the preceding two, the Chancellor once more seeks to control the economy by the use of the money supply. We must ask ourselves one of the most interesting political questions of the day—how is it that a party that has been in power for the greater part of this century, which historically has moved from the status quo only reluctantly and which has never had a warm relationship with theorists on the fringes of their activities, came to be, first, so dominated by the theory of monetarism, and, secondly, so determined to put it into practice?
  We know that the theory was developed for Latin American countries with high rates of inflation. Some of the ideas were imported into Britain in the 1960s. The domestic credit expansion accepted by Roy Jenkins, the Chancellor at that time, was one variation of monetarism. Inflation was increasing and the variable rates of inflation led to pressures on exchange rates and the break-up of the Bretton Woods system. Against, that background monetarism was introduced in Britain almost as a bacillus. All Governments are sceptical of new ideas and distrustful of economic fashions, although they incorporate, possibly for the sake for safety, a few of the newer elements of economic thought. However, such changes are normally limited, so monetarism made little headway.
  That was the position up to the time of the U-turn by the Conservative Administration between 1970 and 1974. They worked for a prices and incomes policy and an arrangement with the trade unions as the only way to reach a solution for higher growth and control of inflation as they saw it. The miners' strike that brought that Government
  90
  to an end caused many Conservatives to examine how they had lost the battle against the miners. That began the search for alternative policies. In the months after 1974 the Conservatives who had been flirting with monetarism began to embrace it, and finally to revere it as the altar upon which all their new hopes would rest.
  The Conservative Party knew that monetarism could be interpreted not only as a technique to control inflation but as an escape route that would avoid the necessity to negotiate with trade unions on matters of pay. What had burned into the souls of many Conservatives was that they had had to negotiate with trade unions, and that they had lost. With a policy of monetarism the employers, not the Government, would have to take on the trade unions, and the Government would be able to stand aside and watch the battle.
  Direct and miserable involvement would be a thing of the past. The fixed and immutable money supply would bankrupt over-generous employers, and trade unions that obtained pay increases beyond the monetary guidelines would put their members' jobs at risk. The employers would be restrained and the employees threatened. Cash limits for the public service would limit the numbers of employees, and wage demands higher than the cash limits would result in redundancies and unemployment. That represented a brilliant economic and political solution for the Conservatives. It solved at a stroke the greatest problem facing them. Planning all that, they were almost berserk with joy. They felt that they had truly discovered the political philosopher's stone.
  In a little noted debate on 13 March 1978 about the fiduciary issue, the theory reached the high water mark in a commitment by the present Financial Secretary to introduce a Bill designed to leave the money supply to the Bank of England, and for the Government to abdicate their responsibilities. All that was to ensure that the Government would be immune from unwelcome industrial and political pressures. Under this system the main levers of the economy would no longer reside at Westminster but in the City of London. The Conservative Opposition at that time, although they subsequently withdrew from this nonsense, maintained their general commitment to monetarism.
  The Budget of 1979 gave the Government the first opportunity to implement their theories. So strongly held were the views of the practitioners of this theory that when VAT was increased in 1979 from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. little long-term inflation was expected. It was said that, because the money supply was to be under control, inflation, too, would be under control. They drew a distinction between inflation and the retail price index. The RPI would increase temporarily, but long-term inflation would not be affected.
  It was thought that the idea had only to be presented to the British people and employers and employees would comply with it and obey it because they would understand the imposed limits. The theory of expectation was blown sky high by the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. If trade union negotiators ever heard of the theory, they certainly ignored it. It was clear that monetary targets had not influenced expectations.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about his medium-term financial strategy in his Budget Statement on 26 March 1980. It is an astonishing document, which launched the decisive monetarist experiment. He said:

  91
  "This strategy is by no means to be confused with a national plan."
  He continued:
  "Opposition Members may laugh—for it is concerned with only those things— very few of them—that the Government actually have within their power to control."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1442–43.]
  In a famous memorandum the Bank for International Settlements referred to the strategy as
  "akin to the experiments in the physical sciences."
  That is what it was. The economy was to go on automatic pilot. Sterling M3 was to be fixed on a central range of targets year by year and would decrease from 9 per cent. to 8 per cent. to 7 per cent. to 6 per cent. year by year. It was not to be the subject of the vagaries of forecasts but was specified as an intention which it was within the Government's control to achieve.
  We know what happened to that. The control of the money supply, which was to lead to a reduction in inflation, resulted in failure. The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service made that clear. It stated:
  "We have not been convinced by evidence of a direct causal relationship from growth in the money supply to inflation."
  In one respect the Government are fortunate that the monetary theory is nonsense. If it were not, because the Government were aiming for 9 per cent. growth and achieved 20 per cent., according to the outworn theory inflation should be rising at 20 per cent. in about two years. That is manifestly not happening.
  I turn to personal allowances and the failure to revalorise them. The position of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is extremely interesting. The right hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Standing Committee of 1977 that considered the then Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman moved with the Rooker-Wise duo and brought the then Conservative Opposition behind indexation. Perhaps the most remarkable fault of this astonishing Budget is the failure to index personal allowances. The Conservative Party has defended indexation with two main objects. The first is to spotlight the failures of all Governments to raise thresholds to meet the erosion caused by inflation. The second is to reduce taxation and so provide incentives, which Conservatives in Opposition claimed were lacking in the economy and represented the major difference between the two political parties.
  In their first Budget in 1979, the Government reduced income tax and provided for a large reduction in the taxes of the better off and the higher income earners. That was the Tory Party acting in character and playing the role which we know well—giving big handouts to the better off in the guise of helping the average taxpayer. To support their actions and to help the better off, the Tories had a theory. It was not a recent innovation but an old encrusted theory. Those tax reductions were to improve incentives at all levels, although not all incentives would be equal. I was never firmly convinced of either the theory or the practice of those incentives.
  However, whenever taxation for the well-to-do was eased to improve the economic performance of the well off—as when surtax levels were raised in 1962, when the tax system was unified in 1972 or when the higher rates were eased in 1979—it would need someone with the imagination of Professor Hayek to discern any consequential economic improvement.
  92
  However, let us assume that those improvements have taken place and that it is only our obtuseness or political prejudice which fail to recognise them. The Budget has increased income tax. Where is the argument about incentives now? Are people no longer expected to work as hard as they did in 1979 and 1980? Are entrepreneurs not expected to do so much entrepreneuring in the next year or so? Or is it argued that this is only a short interval before the onward progress of tax reductions is resumed and that by the next general election, those tax benefits will be restored? That was suggested by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his television broadcast yesterday.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer explains his borrowing difficulties in terms of cyclical problems, but I never understood the cyclical nature of incentives. The cycle is that allowances are increased just after an election and tax concessions are given just before an election, but neither is given in between. I do not comprehend the economic advantages of that.
  However, I am beginning to get a glimmer of the political implications. As a result, we shall vote against Budget resolution No. 18, but we shall want to maintain the position of the blind. If we are fortunate enough to defeat the resolution, we shall put down an amendment in Committee to give the blind allowances which are in that resolution.
  As has been said, it is generally understood that, although a high exchange rate, which has grievously damaged industry, makes exports more valuable and their achievement more difficult, it also makes imports cheaper. That is reflected in the cost of living. On a Treasury estimate, somewhere between three and five percentage points in inflation are reduced as a result of cheaper imports. Inflation is brought down directly as a result of those cheaper imports.
  The only success to which the Government are able to lay claim is that of inflation several points less than they hoped to be able to achieve, but it is three points higher than when they came to office. It would have been several points higher still if it had not been for the high level of the pound resulting from sacrificing British industry on the foreign exchange markets of the world.
  The Budget was expected to produce action to help industry. Help was expected for the decline in manufacturing output, which, according to the press notice issued today, is 15½ per cent. below the level for the same period a year ago. Over that time, unemployment has risen to 2½ million and manufacturing investment has fallen. Industry looked for emergency action. The Budget did nothing to that end. According to Sir Raymond Pennock, president of the CBI, the Budget will increase prices, bankruptcies and unemployment.
  We should feel anxious about how much of British industry will be lost: how many good firms, particularly those that are viable and successful in normal circumstances, will be put out of business as a result of the Chancellor's actions? When economic health is restored, by whatever means, many firms will not be in existence to contribute to any future prosperity that we may hope to enjoy.
  Millions of people are becoming bitter about conditions in the regions, which are not understood or not taken account of. We receive letters on many of these aspects.

  93
  I should like to read one from a lady, who, I believe, speaks for many in a similar position. Her husband was made redundant. She states:
  "From speaking to many people in this area, I feel we could have a revolt unless something is done to help the unemployed. My husband was made redundant after 22 years".
  She then gives me details of his redundancy and his work.
  "However, the despair and heartache is written over the faces of the people in the North, because to take away a man's right to work and support his family takes away his pride.
  There are also our youngsters, leaving school without hope for the future. No wonder a lot of them turn to crime. The jobcentre … has a board full of jobs at £23.50 a week for 40 hours. By anybody's standards, this is slave labour, and that was done away with years ago, or so we were led to believe."
  The lady was clearly referring to the youth opportunities programme, but I telephoned the jobcentre. I found that two-thirds of the jobs were in that category. It is dispiriting for youngsters that hardly anything else is available. The difference between our regions will imperil the unity of the country in the way stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. Those are the problems we face.
  When the Government's policies finally come to their ignoble halt and industry again starts to look ahead, where will the industrial capacity be? It has been undermined. Will firms not seek to restore their profit margins by increasing prices? Will not trade unionists seek to restore the standard of living of their members by making wage claims? If inflation then rises, what will our misery have achieved? It will merely show that the unwise application of inadequate theory is no way to determine our economic future.
  What about the national insurance surcharge. It was almost with disbelief that I heard that nothing was to be done for industry, apart from the stock relief scheme and the small measures for small business. The Government have staked their all on the PSBR. We have a real problem, with 2½ million unemployed on the one hand and a demand for goods and products on the other. If the economic system that the Government are using fails to bring together those 2½ million unemployed and the need for advances in roads, railways, telecommunications and other aspects of our infrastructure which need to be improved or rectified, and if we cannot find a solution which brings those two things together, we must not be surprised if there are those who find more readily acceptable solutions.
  To regard the PSBR as yet one more holy article to which we must yield is to fail completely to understand it. The Financial Statement shows that it is subject to great margins of error and that there are wide variations in what is expected and what can be achieved. It is all very well to talk about a £10½ billion PSBR, but there is a margin of error of £3½ billion, as shown in table 10 on page 28. So it is not £10½ billion, but something between £7 billion and £14 billion. How can it be said that we must have precision when the PSBR is set somewhere between £7 billion and £14 billion? If Conservative, or indeed Labour, Members suggest making it a billion or two more, that would make it between £8 billion and £15 billion or between £9 billion and £16 billion. We then see the nonsense of regarding the PSBR as yet one more holy article by which things are to be determined.
  The Secretary of State for Trade described sterling M3 as a wayward mistress. By comparison with the PSBR, M3 is almost a vestal virgin. Certainly, it has not been subject to the wider discrepancies that we have seen in the PSBR. The PSBR is not just one type of spending; it contains a
  94
  whole range of expenditures. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann) drew attention to this early in the debate last week when he pointed out that current expenditure was going rapidly ahead of capital expenditure. If a higher PSBR is obtained as a result of expenditure on true investment articles such as telecommunications, railways and roads, we may be more relaxed about it. We do not need to have religious incantations about PSBR if a more relaxed PSBR takes unemployment effects into account.
  The Government's first Budget was the consequence of their conviction that they understood the changes necessary to ring improvements through monetarism. They have failed completely in that regard. I am not sure how strong the Chancellor's commitment is to it. I know that today there are four lawyers and a journalist at the Treasury. I am not sure what the level of conviction among them is, or whether they are just producing the arguments demanded of them by the Prime Minister. The first Budget, at any rate, can be seen to have failed completely in its purpose, and the increase in VAT proved to be a disaster.
  The Government's second Budget last year maintained their commitment to the same theory, but in greater detail. The third Budget of the same kind is a monument to the obstinacy of a Government who will not accept the facts that everyone else can see. Like many others, I expected the Government by now have changed their policies and to have brought about a U-turn. This was not because I thought that the Government were stupid or irresolute, but because I assumed that they were sensible and realistic and would in the end act sensibly and rationally in the interests of our people. I assumed that the Government would be limited by the boundaries of reality rather than only by the frontiers of their imagination.
  The fear that is beginning to strike this House and the country is that that assumption may not be valid and that we may be facing an economic decline which will continue until the coming of the next Labour Government. I hope that for the sake of the country that will not be long.
  9.30 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): All those who have taken part in this necessarily wide-ranging debate have recognised, and indeed shared, the anxiety that must beset us when we are taking the central economic decisions for our economy at a time when every economy around the world is facing difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and at a time when the difficulties in our own economy, under successive Governments, have been increased by the mounting cycle of inflation rising to higher levels, which in turn has taken unemployment to higher levels.
  The tensions and difficulties were well illustrated by two characteristic speeches which highlighted very different points of view. On the one hand, there was the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and on the other there was the equally characteristic but rather different speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)——
  Mr. George Foulkes: What about Albert?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and the equally characteristic and forthright speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), which I shall deal with later.
  The House was glad to welcome the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and glad to notice that he had lost neither his fluency nor his sense of humour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only his job."] The whole House joins in commiserating with him on that.
  I am certain that the whole House understands and shares my right hon. Friend's respect for social issues. Every one of my right hon. and hon. Friends is every bit as concerned as he is with the maintenance of the fabric and social unity of this nation. I can well understand why he pointed out—there was no pretence about this, nor is there now—that we must all regard the rising level of unemployment as an issue of real moral concern to this nation. Labour Members have no monopoly in their concern for that. My right hon. and hon. Friends share every bit as much that concern for the level of unemployment in this country.
  Mr. Shore rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not yet.
  Mr. Shore rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not giving way.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall give the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) his opportunity in a moment.
  I wish to make it equally clear that the level of inflation in this country, which has been mounting under successive Governments, is equally, and just as importantly, an important moral issue for the fabric of this nation.
  My right hon. Friend said that when we come to face those two issues—I understand what led him to say this—we do not have the choice and we are not entitled to make the choice between those two problems. In a sense he was right, because it must be the purpose of any responsible Government to conquer both. He was right also because the truth is that we cannot conquer unemployment if we are prepared to accept inflation. So our purpose is, as it must be, to maintain the fight against inflation, not by watching this or that statistic to the underexclusion of any other but as a crucial part of our fight to check the growth of unemployment.
  Mr. Shore: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be taken seriously in regard to his concern about unemployment, can he really not understand that the one certain way to bring about unemployment is to pile deflation upon deflation in the British economy? As he has managed to double the level of unemployment in two years, does he feel that he has any right to talk of his concern about unemployment? What figure does he expect unemployment to reach by the time the next Budget—which he will not present—is presented to this House?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our approach to this matter is founded very firmly upon the experience of the Government of whom the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar was a member—that reflation, so far from conquering unemployment, leads to accelerating inflation and rising unemployment. This country had to live through four years of that experience under the Labour
  96
  Government. They started off with a public sector borrowing requirement of about 6 per cent. They decided to reflate it and increase it and push it up to about 9 per cent.—the kind of figure they might want today.
  What were the results of that reflationary approach to the economy? We had high and rising inflation, declining output—[Interruption]—and in just over two years after the Labour Government came to office, with the borrowing requirement rising in that way, unemployment had more than doubled and had risen by almost 1 million. That was under the labour Government. In addition, as a result of that approach—which they now seek to commend to us—there was an unprecedented loss of international confidence in the Government of this country. The pound fell to a level of $1·56. At the end of that experience, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), recognised the lesson that was to be drawn. He told the Labour Party conference—it is as true today as it was then—that we cannot spend our way into full employment.
  It was in those circumstances that the Government resorted to the International Monetary Fund. Under the tutelage of the IMF, the Labour Government embarked on what some of their supporters described as the most savage expenditure cuts of all time. They reduced the borrowing requirement from 9¾ per cent. to 3¾ per cent., and respected economists of all kinds predicted disaster. Mr. Wynne Godley, just before the IMF measures were put into effect, warned that new measures to reduce the Budget deficit by a large amount would gravely accentuate the recession, and that there were no grounds for thinking that the resulting further increase in unemployment would be temporary.
  But what happened? The Labour Government took the advice of the IMF and they were able to secure single figure inflation within two years. Growth began to return, and for the first time under that Government unemployment ceased to increase. Even that Government were able to recover a measure of international confidence. The whole experience of that Government—which I am glad to draw to the attention of the House in response to the question posed to me by the right hon. Gentleman—demonstrates the validity of the present Government's approach. Restraining borrowing and inflation is the proper way to return to growth and to reduce unemployment.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Chancellor has been explaining the position of the previous Labour Government, will he tell the House when he expects inflation to get back to where it stood in May 1979? Will he also tell us when he expects unemployment—which has just about doubled—to be at the level at which the Conservative Government inherited it? What will he say to the people of Keighley, who have experienced an increase in unemployment under the Tories of 150 per cent.? That is his responsibility.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Conservative Members are as much concerned about the unemployed as anyone else. We can now point to the fact that the rate of inflation that we inherited, which was increasing when we came into office, is below that level and falling. For the first time, progress has been made in that direction. It is wrong to suggest—as some have argued today—that the Budget is too deflationary. It is important to consider the overall fiscal stance and to consider both sides of the account.

  97
  In public spending terms, we are spending £6 billion more next year in cash than was planned a year ago. Of course, part of that is due to the recession. It was right to allow the borrowing requirement to increase to take account of that. However, some part of that amount must be met by extra taxes. The borrowing requirement of £10·5 billion can hardly be described as restrictive. It is higher than was planned for last year and than was forecast in our strategy. We have allowed a substantial increase to take account of the recession.
  Nobody could responsibly believe that we could possibly have accepted, or set out to finance, a borrowing requirement of £14 billion. Those who say that market interest rates have come down ahead of the Budget should recognise that interest rates have fallen only because the market anticipated the type of Budget that we have introduced. Let us consider what would have happened if the opposite course had been taken. Interest rates might have had to increase. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) told the House—I admire his candour—that if we had aimed, as he suggested, for a borrowing requirement that was £2 billion higher, it would have prevented the very reduction in interest rates that we have seen. In other words, it would have put at risk the strategy for defeating inflation. In the long run, that is our only hope of achieving sustainable growth and of reducing unemployment.
  Ultimately, reflation only means inflation. Our policy is designed to sustain the fight against that evil. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford argued that by proceeding in this way—others made the same point—we were not doing as much as we should like to bring help to industry. There was no room and would be no room in a Budget introduced at this time for generalised tax relief for industry. The overriding need, which we set as our first objective, was to create the conditions that would permit lower interest rates for the bulk of industry. Of course, a case could he made—as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) sought to do—for reducing the national insurance surcharge if there were money with which to do so. However, a single percentage point has a full-year cost of almost £¾ billion. In any event, my hon. Friends do not respond with much enthusiasm to an invitation to reduce the national insurance surcharge from the Labour Party. It was the Labour Party's invention. It raised the rate from zero to 3·5 per cent. at a time of high unemployment.
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the manufacturing output figures that were published today show that in one year the Government have managed to reduce manufacturing output by nearly as much as it fell during the two worst years of the slump, namely 1929 and 1931? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is a complete failure for his Government and a tragedy for this country?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question summarises all too easily a fallacy that is too comforting. Of course, it is a matter for regret that manufacturing output is not rising. It is a delusion to believe that that is unique to this country or has been caused by, or is the responsibility of, the Government. [Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman knows, precisely the same thing is happening in other countries. The House would deceive
  98
  itself if it were to believe that that situation can be transformed by a change of Government or by some rapid shift in economic policy.
  We have been bringing help where it is most needed in an effective way. The two measures to help the construction industry are of real vlue. The stock relief proposals will cost almost £½ billion in a full year, bringing corresponding benefits to the whole of industry. The introduction of lower energy prices for large energy users costing over £100 million, will bring similar help.
  Above all, the House is entitled to take note of the substantial reductions in the minimum lending rate achieved since last summer. The president of the CBI called during the autumn for a 4 per cent. reduction in the MLR. Now that monetary conditions can allow it, we have achieved precisely that 4 per cent. reduction. Each reduction point is worth about £350 million to the CBI, and the rates in interest payable by industry in Britain are lower than in Germany or the United States. That is real progress to the benefit of British industry.
  A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed anxiety about the proposed tax on bank deposits. It is right to point out that I warned last year that I should be keeping bank profits under review. This is the third year of high profits. This high phase of bank profits has been brought on by the economic cycle and the high interest rates. There is a direct comparison between the oil companies profiting as they have been doing from recent conditions, and the banks. The contrast between the profits of the banks and manufacturing industry has become even starker. Relatively little tax has been paid on recent profits.
  In the circumstances, I commend my proposal to the House. It is a special once and for all contribution. Having taken account of all the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not believe that it can be regarded as unjustified or unexpected.
  Mr. Budgen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that the banks have not distributed their profits or that such a high proportion has been retained as to necessitate an attack?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the light of the total resources available to the banks, the tax that has been levied on their profits is well justified. No one could claim that it was unexpected. It is not possible to find a sensible alternative. This proposal will make a substantial contribution to the Government's capacity to bring help to British industry.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have also expressed anxiety—I can well understand it—about the impact of the proposed increase in duty on petrol and den,. I recognise that that proposal will give rise to difficulties, particularly in rural areas. But it does and must make a crucial contribution to the revenue that comes from the indirect tax changes comes from that source—almost £1 billion from petrol alone. I have to ask the House, as the House must have been asking itself: how else could the revenue sensibly be raised? Putting 2p extra on beer would raise only £200 million and 5p on top of the large increase in the tax on cigarettes would raise less than £200 million.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East invited my attention to an increased tax on gambling. But one must have regard to the enforcement machinery that would be necessary to produce possibly only a modest increase from that direction. Only last year I restructured

  99
  the duties on gambling, particularly casinos, in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations. I do not believe that it would be possible to look for anything like the amount that would be necessary in that quarter.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget judgment and admire his courage, but I should like to put to him a specific question the answer to which will certainly affect my vote and the votes of a number of my hon. Friends tonight. Between now and the Finance Bill, are the Government prepared to give consideration to reducing the petrol tax increase from 20p to 10p on the basis that alternative cuts in public expenditure and alternative additions to taxation would achieve precisely the same revenue consequence that my right hon. and learned Friend requires for his Budget as a whole?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend would be proffering an illusion to the House if he thought that it was possible to go that way. I have considered very carefully, as have my right hon. Friends, all the alternative methods of raising this money. We have concluded that this is the right and the best course.
  It is right to remind the House that, even after taking account of this proposed increase, the real price of petrol now will be no higher than it was after the last Budget, because there has been no other increase in price since then. It is also right to recognise that the total of tax per gallon of petrol, even after this change, will be lower than it was in real terms 11 years ago, and substantially lower than it was even at the end of 1974. There are still several European countries in which petrol is more expensive than it is here.
  I know that this tax represents a heavy burden on those who dwell in the countryside. I shall certainly keep that fact well in mind. However, I remind the House that the levels which I propose for tax on petrol and diesel fuel are designed, as they must be, to raise a substantial revenue. They make a crucial contribution to the balance of the Budget and to the Budget as a whole. The decision on each individual measure depends on others being in place. I assure my hon. Friends that I should not be proposing and supporting this proposal if any acceptable alternative had been available to me.
  One other matter was raised by a number of my hon. Friends—in particular, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford and for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). They asked about the possibility of further investment in public sector activity, whether of a private or a public kind, with particular reference to major capital works. It must be recognised that to embark on investment just for the sake of it is not enough. Investment must offer the prospect of a real return. Even where that is available, it must still be financed. The question must still be looked at in the context of the overriding need to contain public expenditure—already higher than the Government would have wished.
  It is also important to recognise that there is no answer to this in suggesting that investment can be undertaken sensibly through the nationalised industries, because in so
  100
  far as we stand behind the debts of those industries, their position is exactly the same. It is important to recognise that investment for capital purposes is more virtuous than expenditure for current purposes, but it must still be profitable and well directed.
  There is the same choice even about investment in the nationalised industries, but there they have a choice, and if less is spent on pay, more is available for investment. The Government are not prepared to see more money borrowed or taxed from the private sector simply to shelter the nationalised industries from that fundamental choice.
  Investment that is privately financed does not pose the same problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham pointed out, that is the value of privatisation. It is the reason for the successive programmes of disposal that the present Government have undertaken, to the tune of £1 billion in the first year and almost £½ billion next year, and with a target of another £½ billion next year. That is a measure of the extent to which the burden is being transferred from the taxpayer to the private sector. It is notable that British Aerospace now has loan facilities of £400 million available. Had that remained in the public sector, those drawings would have counted against the public sector borrowing requirement. So, as my right hon. Friends pointed out, there is good reason for seeking other ways of attracting private capital short of complete privatisation, and I shall continue to search for propositions of that type.
  The key conditions for such investment by private funds in major works of the kind that my hon. Friends have suggested is that the monetary consequences should be more beneficial than alternative forms of finance and that the methods of investment offer real pressure for improved performance on the management of the industry by establishing a proper link between the investment and the return to the investor. I assure the House that we are determined to make progress in that direction.
  It will be all part of a piece with the proposals which many right hon. and hon. Members have commended in the way of the enterprise package: the many changes made in the last two Budgets, the reduction in corporation tax for small businesses, the new venture capital schemes, the changes in capital transfer taxes, the loan guarantee scheme, the small business start-up scheme and the small companies corporation tax changes once again this year—all those this year representing almost £100 million worth of help in a full year to small business, and widely welcomed not just by my hon. Friends but by representatives of small business and by Opposition Members. All those contrast completely with the attitude of the previous Administration. They offer a whole new framework in which businesses will now operate. This Government will do as they have been invited to do and make sure that they are fully exploited to the advantage of the economy.
  The central challenge at the end of this Budget debate is a challenge to the right view of what it would be wise for this Government to borrow as they set out for the year ahead. In my judgment, it would be unwise and irresponsible for the Government to plan to borrow more than the figure I have suggested in the year ahead. Even that is a very substantial sum. Even that will add more than £1,000 million a year to the burden of debt interest in the years ahead.
  I have taken account of the fact that the recession is still at work. I have taken account of the fact that the private

  101
  sector is likely to borrow less. But, even having done that, it would not be right for this Government to set out deliberately to overspend by more than £10½ million in the year ahead. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar suggested that we could borrow a much larger sum than that harmlessly and without ill effects. That is wholly remote from the truth. A larger borrowing requirement than that would be a clear invitation—
  Mr. Shore rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The borrowing requirement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be—
  Mr. Shore rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor must be allowed to continue.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman's approach would be an invitation for higher, not lower, interest rates. His approach would be a clear signal for prices to start rising again.
  Mr. Shore rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. I am not giving way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are approaching the end of the debate. Other right hon. and hon. Members have been allowed to speak without interruption.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The plain fact is that the policy of the Labour Party is a prescription for higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher unemployment. We mean to secure the prospect of lower interest rates so that private enterprise may borrow to invest and prosper. We mean to drive home the advantage already won against inflation. Borrowing money to pay for current spending has been the "Rake's Progress" down the ages. Bankruptcy and worse have been the invariable fate of those nations which have let their borrowing run out of control. In recent years all our troubles have flowed from a disposition to borrow too much. It would be folly to run that risk again.
  In my judgment, this Budget sets the borrowing objective that is consistent with prudence. Those who do not support it will be voting for higher interest rates, renewed inflation and faster decline. That would be folly indeed. I commend the Budget to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 270.

  Division No. 99

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Alison, Michael

  Best, Keith

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bevan, DavidGilroy

  Ancram, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Tom

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Blackburn, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Blaker, Peter

  Atkins, Robert (Preston)

  Body, Richard

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

  Bonsor, SirNicholas

  Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

  Boscawen, HonRobert

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Banks, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bright, Graham

  102

  Brittan, Leon

  Grylls, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hannam, John

  Buck, Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Butcher, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Henderson, Barry

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'tn'm)

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

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hooson, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cope, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Hurd, HonDouglas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Critchley, Julian

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Dover, Denshore

  Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lamont, Norman

  Eggar, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Elliott, Sir William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Emery, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lee, John

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  Farr, John

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Loveridge, John

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

  Luce, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fox, Marcus

  MacGregor, John

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Galbraith, HonT. G. D.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Madel, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Major, John

  Gilmour, Rt HonSir Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marshall Michael (Arundel)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Gow, Ian

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grieve, Percy

  Mayhew, Patrick

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

  Mellor, David

  Griffiths, Peter Port sm'th N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  103

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Shersby, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Silvester, Fred

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Sims, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Molyneaux, James

  Smith, Dudley

  Monro, Hector

  Speed, Keith

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Speller, Tony

  Moore, John

  Spence,John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Sproat, Iain

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Squire, Robin

  Mudd, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Myles, David

  Stanley, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Steen, Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Stevens, Martin

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Newton, Tony

  Stokes, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Parris, Matthew

  Thompson, Donald

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Trippier, David

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Pink, R. Bonner

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pollock, Alexander

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Porter, Barry

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Waddington, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wakeham, John

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Waldegrave, HonWilliam

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Raison, Timothy

  Wall, Patrick

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Walters, Dennis

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Ward, John

  Renton, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Watson, John

  RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wheeler, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Whitney, Raymond

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Willams, D. (Montgomery)

  Rost, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, HonTimothy

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Scott, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Mr. Spencer L. Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Adams, Allen

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Allaun, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Alton, David

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ashton, Joe

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey)

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  104

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Graham, Ted

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

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

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Campbell, Ian

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Haynes, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

  Cartwright, John

  HomeRobertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Homewood, William

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Cohen, Stanley

  Horam, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Howells, Geraint

  Conlan, Bernard

  Huckfield, Les

  Cook, Robin F.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cryer, Bob

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  Kinnock, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Dixon, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dormand, Jack

  Leighton, Ronald

  Douglas, Dick

  Lestor, MissJoan

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunlop, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Eadie, Alex

  McCartney, Hugh

  Eastham, Ken

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)

  McKelvey, William

  English, Michael

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank

  McTaggart, Robert

  Fitch, Alan

  Magee, Bryan

  Fitt, Gerard

  Marks, Kenneth

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Forrester, John

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Derek

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Foulkes, George

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Freud, Clement

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  George, Bruce

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Golding, John

  Morton, George

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  105

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Sheerman, Barry

  Newens, Stanley

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  Short, Mrs Renée

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Silverman, Julius

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Palmer, Arthur

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Park, George

  Snape, Peter

  Parker, John

  Soley, Clive

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Penhaligon, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Prescott, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Race, Reg

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Radice, Giles

  Stoddart, David

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Stott, Roger

  Richardson, Jo

  Strang, Gavin

  Robert s, Albert (Normanton)

  Straw, Jack

  Robert s, Allan(Bootle)

  Summerskill, HonDr Shirley

  Robert s, Gwilym (Cannok)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Robert son, George

  Thomas, Datydd(Merioneth)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  Roper, John

  Tilley, John

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Tinn, James

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Torney, Tom

  Rowlands, Ted

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Ryman, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

  Sever, John

  Wainwright, R, (ColneV)

  106

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Rt HonSir H, (H'ton)

  Weetch, Ken

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Winnick, David

  Welsh, Michael

  Woodall, Alec

  White, Frank R.

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wright, Sheila

  Whitlock, William

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean

  Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of—

  (a) any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (i) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (ii) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (iii) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (iv) for any relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description; or

  (b) any amendment relating to the surcharge imposed by the National Insurance Surcharge Act 1976 and applying to some only of the persons by or in respect of whom the surcharge is payable.

  2. SPIRITS
  Motion made, and Question
  That, as from 11 th March 1981, the rates of duty specified in section 5 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £11·87 and £11·90 per litre of alcohol in the spirits to £13·60 and £13·63 per litre of alcohol in the spirits respectively.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. —[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions):—
  The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 253.

  Division No. 100

  [10 13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Alexander, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Alison, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

  Ancram, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Atkins, Rt HonH, (S'thorne)

  Dover, Denshore

  Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Baker, Kenneth (St, M'bone)

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Peter

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Best, Keith

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Farr, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fell, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Blackburn, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Boscawen, HonRobert

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fox, Marcus

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Bright, Graham

  Fry, Peter

  Brittan, Leon

  Galbraith, HonT. G. D.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Buck, Antony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Budgen, Nick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Gorst, John

  Butcher, John

  Gow, Ian

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Gray, Hamish

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grieve, Percy

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

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

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Griffiths, Peter Port sm'thN)

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grylls, Michael

  Churchill, W, S.

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

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

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hannam, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Cope, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Corrie, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dormand, Jack

  Adams, Allen

  Douglas, Dick

  Allaun, Frank

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Alton, David

  Dubs, Alfred

  Anderson, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunlop, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunn, James A.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnett, Jack

  Atkinson, H. (H'gey)

  Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bamett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

  Beith, A, J.

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

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  English, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Booth royd, Miss Betty

  Field, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt HonA, (M'b'ro)

  Fitch, Alan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fitt, Gerard

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Caliaghan, Rt HonJ.

  Ford, Ben

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

  Forrester, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foulkes, George

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Carmichael, Neil

  Freud, Clement

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Cocks, Rt HonM. (B'stolS)

  George, Bruce

  Cohen, Stanley

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Coleman, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Golding, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cook, Robin F.

  Graham, Ted

  Cowans, Harry

  G rant, George (Morpeth)

  Craigen, J, M.

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Crowther, J, S.

  Grimond, Rt HonJ.

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hardy, Peter

  Cunningham, G. (lslingtonS)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Haynes, Frank

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Heffer, EricS.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

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

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

  Deakins, Eric

  HomeRobertson, John

  Dempsey, James

  Homewood, William

  Dewar, Donald

  Hooley, Frank

  Dixon, Donald

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Dobson, Frank

  Howells, Geraint

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Heddle, John

  Mudd, David

  Henderson, Barry

  Murphy, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Myles, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Needham, Richard

  Hill, James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neubert, Michael

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Newton, Tony

  Hooson, Tom

  Normanton, Tom

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Parris, Matthew

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Porter, Barry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Knox, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lamont, Norman

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lang, Ian

  Raison, Timothy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Renton, Tim

  Lee, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Ridley, HonNicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Robert s, Wyn (Conway)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rossi, Hugh

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  MacGregor, John

  Sainsbury, HonTimothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Macmillan, Rt HonM.

  Scott, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Major, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Shersby, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Silvester, Fred

  MarshallMichael(Arundel)

  Sims, Roger

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Dudley

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Speller, Tony

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stanley, John

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Steen, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Martin

  Mitchell, Davld (Basingstoke)

  Stewart,Ian (Hitchin)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Monro, Hector

  Stokes, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  StradlingThomas, J.

  Moore, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint

  Taylor, Robert(CroydonNW)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)

  Waller, Gary

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ward, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Watson, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Thorne, Neil (llfordSouth)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wheeler, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whitelaw, Rt HonWilliam

  Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Trippier, David

  Wickenden, Keith

  Trotter, Neville

  Wiggin, Jerry

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wilkinson, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wakeham, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waldegrave, HonWilliam

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walker, Rt Hon P, (W'cester)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Wall, Patrick

  Huckfield, Les

  Prescott, John

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Race, Reg

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Richardson, Jo

  Janner, HonGreville

  Robert s, Albert (Normanton)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robert s, Allan(Bootle)

  John, Brynmor

  Robert s, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robertson, George

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kerr, Russell

  Ryman, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sever, John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lambie, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lamond, James

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lestor, MissJoan

  Silverman, Julius

  Lewis, Art hur (N'hamNW)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Litherland, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lyon, Alexander(York)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stoddart, David

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Stott, Roger

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Strang, Gavin

  McKelvey, William

  Straw, Jack

  MacKenzie, Rt HonGregor

  Summerskill, HonDr Shirley

  McMahon, Andrew

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Magee, Bryan

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tilley, John

  Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Tinn, James

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Torney, Tom

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

  Maxton, John

  Wainwright, R, (ColneV)

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Meacher, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Welsh, Michael

  Miller, Dr M, S. (E Kilbride)

  White, Frank R.

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  Mitchell, R, C. (Soton Itchen)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Rt HonJ. (Aberavon)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mort on, George

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

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Newens, Stanley

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Ogden, Eric

  Winnick, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Woodall, Alec

  O'Neill, Martin

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Sheila

  Palmer, Arthur

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Park, George

  Parker, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Penhaligon, David

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  3. BEER
  That, as from 11th March 1981, the rates of duty specified in section in section 36 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased—

  (a) from £13·05 for each hectolitre to £18.00 for each hectolitre;

  111
  the Crown are not paid at a rate which ensures—this seems tj

  (b) from £0·435 for each additional degree of original gravity exceeding 1030 degrees to £0·60 for each such additional degree.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. — [Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions):—
  The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 253.

  Division No. 101]

  [10.25

  AYES

  Adley,Robert

  Critchley,Julian

  Aitken,Jonathan

  Crouch,David

  Alexander,Richard

  Dean,Paul (North Somerset)

  Alison,Michael

  Dickens,Geoffrey

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ancram,Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

  Arnold,Tom

  Dover,Denshore

  Aspinwall,Jack

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Atkins,Robert (Preston)

  Durant,Tony

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

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Robert

  Elliott, Sir William

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Farr, John

  Best, Keith

  Fell, Anthony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Blackburn, John

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

  Blaker,Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Body,Richard

  Forman,Nigel

  Bonsor,Sir Nicholas

  Fowler,Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen,Hon Robert

  Fox,Marcus

  Bottomley,Peter (W'wich W)

  Fraser,Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Bowden,Andr ew

  Fraser,Peter (SouthAngus)

  Boyson,Dr Rhodes

  Fry,Peter

  Braine,Sir Bernard

  Galbraith,HonT, G. D.

  Bright, Graham

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Brittan, Leon

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brothert on, Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Goodhart,Philip

  Buchanan-Smith,Alick

  Goodhew,Victor

  Buck,Antony

  Goodlad,Alastair

  Budgen,Nick

  Gorst,John

  Bulmer,Esmond

  Gow,Ian

  Burden,Sir Frederick

  Gower,Sir Raymond

  Butcher, John

  Grant,Anthony (HarrowC)

  Butler,Hon Adam

  Gray,Hamish

  Cadbury,Jocelyn

  Grieve,Percy

  Carlisle,John (LutonWest)

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

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

  Grist, Ian

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Grylls, Michael

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, HonA.

  Churchill, W,S.

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Sir W(Croydon S)

  Hannam, John

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Cockeram, Eric

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Paul

  Cope, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Corrie, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heddle, John

  112

  Henderson, Barry

  Murphy, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Myles, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon TerenceL.

  Needham, Richard

  Hill, James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Neubert, Michael

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Newton, Tony

  Hooson, Tom

  Normanton, Tom

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Howell, Ralph(NNorfolk)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)

  Hunt, David(Wirral)

  Page, Richard(SWHerts)

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Parris, Matthew

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Porter, Barry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Knox, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lamont, Norman

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lang, Ian

  Raison, Timothy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Renton, Tim

  Lee, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Ridley, HonNicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lloyd, Ian (HavantA W'loo)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Robert s, Wyn (Conway)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rossi, Hugh

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  MacGregor, John

  Sainsbury, HonTimothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Scott, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Major, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Shersby, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Silvester, Fred

  MarshallMichael(Arundel)

  Sims, Roger

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Dudley

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Speller, Tony

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  May hew, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Stanley,John

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Steen, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Martin

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

  Monro, Hector

  Stokes, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moore, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  113

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ward, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thome, Nei1 (IlfordSouth)

  Watson, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Wells, Bowen

  Townsend, CyrilD, (S'heath)

  Wheeler, John

  Trippier, David

  Whitelaw, Rt HonWilliam

  Trotter, Neville

  Whitney, Raymond

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waddington, David

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Wakeham, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, HonWilliam

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, B. (Pert h)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Wall, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Walters, Dennis

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dormand, Jack

  Adams, Allen

  Douglas, Dick

  Allaun, Frank

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Alton, David

  Dubs, Alfred

  Anderson, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunn, James A.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

  Eadie, Alex

  Bagier, GordonA, T.

  Eastham, Ken

  Bamett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Ellis, R, (NED'bysh're)

  Beith, A, J.

  English, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Field, Frank

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Fitch, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt HonA. (M'b'ro)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, HughD. (Provan)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Ford, Ben

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Forrester, John

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

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

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

  Canavan, Dennis

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Cant, R. B.

  Freud, Clement

  Carmichael, Neil

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ginsburg, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Golding, John

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Conlan, Bernard

  Graham, Ted

  Cook, Robin F.

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Cowans, Harry

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Grimond, Rt HonJ.

  Crowther, J. S.

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

  Cryer, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Haynes, Frank

  Davidson, Arthur

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

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

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

  HomeRobertson, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Homewood, William

  Dempsey, James

  Hooley, Frank

  Dewar, Donald

  Howell, Rt HonD.

  Dixon, Donald

  Howells, Geraint

  Dobson, Frank

  Huckfield, Les

  114

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Race, Reg

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Richardson, Jo

  Janner, HonGreville

  Robert s, Albert (Normanton)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robert s, Gwilym(Cannock)

  John, Brynmor

  Robertson, George

  Johnson, James (HullWest)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Rooker, J, W.

  Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ryman, John

  Kerr, Russell

  Sever, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kinnock, Neil

  Sheldon, Rt HonR.

  Lambie, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silverman, Julius

  Lestor, MissJoan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Snape, Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Summerskill, HonDr Shirley

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Magee, Bryan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tilley, John

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Tinn, James

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Torney, Tom

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Martin,M (G'gowS'burn)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

  Maxton, John

  Wainwright, R. (ConelV)

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Meacher, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Welsh, Michael

  Miller, Dr M, S. (E Kilbride)

  White, Frank R.

  Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morton, George

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

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

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Williams, Sir T, fW'forV

  Newens, Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Woodall, Alec

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wright, Sheila

  Park, George

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Parker, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  4. WINE
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 11th March 1981, the rates of duty under section 54 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be as follows:

  115

  Description of wine

  Rates of duty per hectolitre

  £

  Wine of a strength—

  not exceeding 15 per cent. … … … … … …

  95·20

  exceeding 15 but not exceeding 18 per cent. … …

  122·90

  exceeding 18 but not exceeding 22 per cent. … …

  144·70

  exceeding 22 per cent. … … … … … … …

  144·70 plus

  £13·60 for every 1 per cent, or part of 1 per cent, in excess of 22 per cent.;

  each of the above rates of duty being, in the case of sparkling wine, increased by £20·90 per hectolitre.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.——[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  Description of made-wine

  Rates of duty per hectolitre

  £

  Made-wine of a strength—

  not exceeding 10 per cent. … … … … … …

  61·80

  exceeding 10 but not exceeding 15 per cent. … …

  92·50

  exceeding 15 but not exceeding 18 per cent. … …

  113·90

  exceeding 18 per cent. … … … … … … …

  113·90 plus

  £13·60 for every 1 per cent, or part of 1 per cent, in excess of 18 percent.;

  each of the above rates of duty being, in the case of sparkling made-wine, increased by £9·60 per hectolitre.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  6. CIDER
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 11th March 1981, the rate of duty specified in section 62(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £6.05 per hectolitre to £7·20 per hectolitre.

  TABLE

  1. Cigarettes… … … … … … … …

  …An amount equal to 21 per cent, of the retail price plus £18·04 per thousand cigarettes.

  2. Cigars … … … … … … … …

  …£34·29 per kilogram.

  3. Hand-rolling tobacco … … … … …

  …£29·56 per kilogram.

  4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

  …£21·92 per kilogram."

  (2) Section 3 (additional duty on higher tar cigarettes) shall be omitted.

  5. MADE-WINE
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 11th March 1981, the rates of duty under section 55 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be as follows:
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.m—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  7. TOBACCO PRODUCTS
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 14th March 1981, the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 shall be amended as follows—

  (1) For the Table in Schedule 1 there shall be substituted—

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.94 (Ways and Means motions):—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 229.

  Division No. 102]

  [10.35 pm

  AYES

  Adley,Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

  Aitken,Jonathan

  Dover,Denshore

  Alexander,Richard

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Alison,Michael

  Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

  Amery, RtHonJulian

  Durant,Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Eden, RtHon Sir John

  Arnold,Tom

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Aspinwall,Jack

  Eggar,Tim

  Atkins, RtHon H .(S'thorne)

  Elliott, SirWilliam

  Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)

  Emery, Peter

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

  Eyre,Reginald

  Baker.Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Fairbairn,Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fairgrieve,Russell

  Banks,Robert

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Farr,John

  Beith.A.J.

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bell,SirRonald

  Finsberg,Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Fletcher.A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

  Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

  Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Forman,Nigel

  Best, Keith

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fox, Marcus

  Biffen, RtHon John

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Biggs-Davison,John

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Blackburn,John

  Freud,Clement

  Blaker, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Body,Richard

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Bonsor,SirNicholas

  Gardiner,George (Reigate)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bcenter, Graham

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brittan, Leon

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gorst, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Gray, Hamish

  Buck, Antony

  Grieve, Percy

  Budgen, Nick

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

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hannam, John

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Chapman, Sydney

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Churchill, W, S.

  Hawkins, Paul

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

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Heddle, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Henderson, Barry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Corrie, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Hill, James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Critchley, Julian

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Crouch, David

  Hooson, Tom

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Hordern, Peter

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon D, (G'Idf'd)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Adams, Allen

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

  Allaun, Frank

  English, Michael

  Alton, David

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Field, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Fitch, Alan

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Bagier, Gordon A, T.

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwhich)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Forrester, John

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Foster, Derek

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

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

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

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Golding, John

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell, Ian

  Graham, fed

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Cant, R. B.

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hardy, Peter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hart, Rt Hon DameJudith

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Stanley

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Cook, Robin F.

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

  Cowans, Harry

  Homewood, William

  Craigen, J. M.

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Crowther, J, S.

  Howells, Geraint

  Cryer, Bob

  Huckfield, Les

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  John, Brynmor

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Davis, CIinton (Hackney C)

  Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)

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

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dixon, Donald

  Kerr, Russell

  Dobson, Frank

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dormand, Jack

  Kinnock, Neil

  Douglas, Dick

  Lambie, David

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamborn, Harry

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamond, James

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leighton, Ronald

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, MissJoan

  Eastham, Ken

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Parris, Matthew

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Jessel, Toby

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kimball, Marcus

  Porter, Barry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

  Knox, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Lamont, Norman

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lang, Ian

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Raison, Timothy

  Latham, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lee, John

  Renton, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Loveridge, John

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Luce, Richard

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rossi, Hugh

  MacGregor, John

  Rost, Peter

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Royle, Sir Anthon y

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Scott, Nicholas

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Major, John

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Marland, Paul

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Marlow, Tony

  Shepherd, Richard

  MarshallMichael(Arundel)

  Shersby, Michael

  Marten, Neil(Banbury)

  Silvester, Fred

  Mates, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Smith, Dudley

  Mawby, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Speller, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Mellor, David

  Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Squire, Robin

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Stainton, Keith

  Mills, Peter (WestDevon)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MiscampbelI, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Monro, Hector

  Stevens, Martin

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stokes, John

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  StradlingThomas, J.

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morrison, HonP. (Chester)

  Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Tebbit, Norman

  Myles, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Needham, Richard

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Donald

  Neubert, Michael

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Newton, Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Normanton, Tom

  Townend, John(Bridlingtor)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Trippier, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Wells, Bowen

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wheeler, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Viggers, Peter

  Whitney, Raymond

  Waddington, David

  Wickenden, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Walters, Dennis

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ward, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, John

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Litherland, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ryman, John

  Lyon, Alexander(York)

  Sever, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McCart ney, Hugh

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  McKay, AWen(Penistone)

  Silverman, Julius

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McTaggart, Robert

  Stallard, AW.

  Magee, Bryan

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David

  Marshal1, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)

  Taylor, MrsAnn (Bolton W)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Daiydd(Merioneth)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tilley, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tinn, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wainwcenter, E,(DearneV)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Mort on, George

  Watkins, David

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Weetch, Ken

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wellbeloved, James

  Newens, Stanley

  Welsh, Michael

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  White, Frank R.

  Ogden, Eric

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitehead, Phillip

  O'Neill, Martin

  Whitlock, William

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Palmer, Art hur

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

  Park, George

  Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

  Parker, John

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Prescott, John

  Winnick, David

  Race, Reg

  Woodall, Alec

  Radice, Giles

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Wcenter, Sheila

  Richardson, Jo

  Young, David (BoltonE)

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Rooker, J, W.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  8. MATCHES AND MECHANICAL LIGHTERS
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 11th March 1981, the Matches and Mechanical Lighters Duties Act 1979 shall be amended as follows—

  (1) In section 1(1) (duty on matches at the rate of £0·49 for every 7,200 matches) for "£0·49" there shall be substituted "£1·15".

  (2) In section 6(1) (duty on mechanical lighters at the rate of £0·20 for each lighter) for "£0·20" there shall be substituted "£0·50".

  (3) In section 6(3) (exemption for lighters constructed solely for the purpose of igniting gas for domestic use) after the word "domestic" there shall be inserted the words "or industrial".

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  9. POOL BETTING DUTY
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 1st July 1981, the relevant monetary limits referred to in subsection (4) of section 6 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1972 shall be the limits referred to in the provisions mentioned in that subsection as they have effect on that date.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. —[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  IO. HYDROCARBON OIL ETC.
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1981, section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 shall have effect with the substitution for "0·10 a litre" of "£0·1382 a litre".
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. —[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions):—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 281.

  Division No. 103]

  [10.50 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Alison, Michael

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

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Ancram, Michael

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Arnold, Tom

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Churchill, W, S.

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Roben(PrestonN)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Baker, Kennetr(St, M'bone)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert

  Cope, John

  Beau mont-Dark, Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Critchley, Julian

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Crouch, David

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Qilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Denshore

  Biggs-Davison, John

  duCann, Rt Hon Edward

  Blackburn, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Blaker, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Body, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bowden, Andr ew

  Emery, Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Eyre, Reginald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bcenter, Graham

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Brittan, Leon

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fell, Anthony

  Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Buck, Antony

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

  Budgen, Nick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Forman, Nigel

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  122

  Fry, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Mather, Carol

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mellor, David

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Gow, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  G rant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Moate, Roger

  Gray, Hamish

  Monro, Hector

  Grieve, Percy

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Moore, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Richard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Newton, Tony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Heddle, John

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parris, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Percival, Sir Ian

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

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Porter, Barry

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Raison, Timothy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

  Renton, Tim

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Latham, Michael

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lee, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lewis, Kenneth(Rutand)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Richard

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Smith, Dudley

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Major, John

  Speller, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Spence, John

  MarshallMichael(Arundel)

  Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

  Mart en, Neil(Banbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  123

  Sproat, Iain

  Waddington, David

  Squire, Robin

  Wakeham, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Waldeg rave, Hon William

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stanley, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Steen, Anthony

  Wall, Patrick

  Stevens, Martin

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, John

  Watson, John

  StradlingThomas, J.

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wheeler, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wickenden, Keith

  Thompson, Donald

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thome, Neil (IlfordSouth)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trotter, Neville

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry

  Viggers, Peter

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Adams, Allen

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Allaun, Frank

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

  Alton, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Anderson, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dixon, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Douglas, Dick

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Beith, A.J.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Dunlop, John

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Dunn, James A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnett, Jack

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Tom

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  English, Michael

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

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Farr, John

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

  Field, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Fitch, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fitt, Gerard

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Raymond (IIkeston)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwcenter, John

  Ford, Ben

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Forrester, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Foster, Derek

  Cohen, Stanley

  Foulkes, George

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Freud, Clement

  Cook, Robin F.

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Cowans, Harry

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Craigen, J. M.

  George, Bruce

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Crowther, J. S.

  Ginsburg, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Golding, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)

  Graham, Ted

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

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Davidson, Arthur

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

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  124

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hardy, Peter

  Newens, Stanley

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Haynes, Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Heffer, EricS.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hicks, Robert

  Palmer, Arthur

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Park, George

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

  Parker, John

  HomeRobertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Homewood, William

  Penhaligon, David

  Hooley, Frank

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

  Horam, John

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Prescott, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Race, Reg

  Huckfield, Les

  Radice, Giles

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Robeits, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, George

  John, Brynmor

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robinson, P.(Belfast E)

  Johnson, Russell(Inverness)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roper, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross,Wm. (Londonderry)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Knox, David

  Ryman, John

  Lambie, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sever, John

  Lamond, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Mrs Renee

  Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Litherland, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lyon, AlexanderfVony

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Snape, Peter

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCusker, H.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stallard, A, W.

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McKelvey, William

  Stoddart, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stott, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  McMahon, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Tapsell, Peter

  McTaggart, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Magee, Bryan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Daiydd (Merioneth)

  Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)

  Martin, M (G'gowS'bum)

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Tilley, John

  Maxton, John

  Tinn, James

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Torney, Tom

  Meacher, Michael

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwcenter, E. (DearneV)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wainwcenter, R.(ColneV)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

  Watkins, David

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Weetch, Ken

  Molyneaux, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  White, Frank R.

  Morton, George

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Whitehead, Phillip

  125

  Whitlock, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

  Wcenter, Sheila

  Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  II. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY
  Motion made, and Question,
  That the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 and the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 shall have effect with the amendments set Out below.

  PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR PART II OF SCHEDULE I TO ACT OF I97I AND ACT OF I972

  Description of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  £

  1. Bicycles and tricycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed 150 cubic centimetres.. … … … … … … … … … …

  7·00

  2. Bicycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine exceeds 150 cubic centimetres but does not exceed 250 cubic centimetres; tricycles (other than those in the foregoing paragraph) and vehicles (other than mowing machines) with more than three wheels, being tricycles and vehicles neither constructed nor adapted for use nor used for the carriage of a driver or passenger… … … … … …

  14·00

  3. Bicycles and tricycles not in the foregoing paragraphs… … … … …

  28·00

  But this Resolution shall not authorise the making of amendments which would result in different provisions being in force in different parts of Great Britain.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  (1) In the said Acts of 1971 and 1972—

  (a) for the provisions of Part II of Schedules 1 to 5 (annual rates of duty) there shall be substituted the provisions set out below;

  (b) in section 16 (trade licences) for "£30" and "£6" there shall be substituted respectively "£35" and "£7";

  (c) in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 1 (annual rates of duty on certain vehicles not exceeding 8¼ cwt. for ''8¼ cwt." there shall be substituted "425 kilograms".

  (2) Paragraph (1) above has effect in relation to licences taken out after 10th March 1981.

  PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR PART II OF SCHEDULE 3 TO ACT OF I97I

  Weight unladen of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Description of vehicle

  Exceeding

  Not exceeding

  Initial

  Additional for each ton or part of a ton in excess of the weight in column 2

  £

  £

  1. Agricultural machines; digging machines; mobile cranes; works trucks; mowing machines; fishermen's tractors

  —

  —

  12·00

  —

  2. Haulage vehicles, being show-men's vehicles

  —

  7¼ tons

  116·00

  —

  7¼ tons

  8 tons

  139·00

  —

  8 tons

  10 tons

  163·00

  —

  10 tons

  —

  163·00

  25·00

  3. Haulage vehicles, not being showmen's vehicles

  —

  2 tons

  138·00

  2 tons

  4 tons

  248·00

  —

  4 tons

  6 tons

  359·00

  —

  6 tons

  7¼tons

  469·00

  —

  7¼ tons

  8 tons

  573·00

  —

  8 tons

  10 tons

  573·00

  97·00

  10 tons

  —

  766·00

  110·00

  PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR PART II OF SCHEDULE 4 TO ACT OF I97I TABLES SHOWING ANNUAL RATES OF DUTY ON GOODS VEHICLES

  TABLE A

  GENERAL RATES OF DUTY

  Weight unladen of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Description of vehicle

  exceeding

  Not Exceeding

  Initial

  Additional for each ¼ ton or part of a ¼ ton in excess of the weight in column 2

  £

  £

  1. Farmers' goods vehicles …

  —

  12 cwt

  41·00

  —

  12 cwt

  16 cwt

  44·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  48·00

  —

  1 ton

  3 tons

  48·00

  6

  3 tons

  5 tons

  95·00

  4

  5 tons

  7 tons

  130·00

  3

  7 tons

  9 tons

  156·00

  2

  9 tons

  —

  185·00

  5

  2. Showmen's goods vehicles …

  12 cwt

  41·00

  12 cwt

  16 cwt

  44·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  48·00

  —

  1 ton

  3 tons

  48·00

  6

  3 tons

  5 tons

  95·00

  4

  5 tons

  6 tons

  130·00

  3

  6 tons

  9 tons

  140·00

  6

  9 tons

  —

  222·00

  8

  3. Tower wagons … … …

  —

  12 cwt

  55·00

  —

  12 cwt

  16 cwt

  61·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  69·00

  —

  1 ton

  4 tons

  69·00

  7

  4 tons

  6 tons

  153·00

  8

  6 tons

  9 tons

  217·00

  7

  9 tons

  —

  315·00

  12

  4. Goods vehicles not included in any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule

  —

  16 cwt

  70·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  76·00

  —

  1 ton

  4 tons

  76·00

  20

  4 tons

  9 tons

  305·00

  35

  9 tons

  10 tons

  1,081–00

  38

  10 tons

  —

  1,230–00

  45

  PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR PART II OF SCHEDULE 4 TO ACT OF I972 TABLES SHOWING ANNUAL RATES OF DUTY ON GOODS VEHICLES

  TABLE A

  GENERAL RATES OF DUTY

  Weight unladen of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Description of vehicle

  Exceeding

  Not exceeding

  Initial

  Additional for each ¼ ton or part of a ¼ ton in excess of the weight in column 2

  £

  £

  1. Farmers'goods vehicles…

  —

  12 cwt

  41·00

  —

  12 cwt

  16 cwt

  44·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  48·00

  —

  1 ton

  3 tons

  48·00

  6·00

  3 tons

  6 tons

  97·00

  2·00

  6 tons

  8 tons

  127·00

  1·00

  8 tons

  9 tons

  140·00

  2·00

  9 tons

  —

  161·00

  3·00

  2. Showmen's goods vehicles; tower wagons

  —

  12 cwt

  53·00

  —

  12 cwt

  16 cwt

  55·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  62·00

  —

  1 ton

  3 tons

  64·00

  3·00

  3 tons

  6 tons

  87·00

  5·00

  6 tons

  9 tons

  142·00

  6·00

  9 tons

  —

  222·00

  8·00

  3. Goods vehicles not included in any of the foregoing provisions of this Part

  —

  16 cwt

  70·00

  —

  16 cwt

  1 ton

  76·00

  —

  1 ton

  3 tons

  76·00

  14·00

  3 tons

  4 tons

  187·00

  22·00

  4 tons

  6 tons

  276·00

  29·00

  6 tons

  9 tons

  508·00

  33·00

  9 tons

  —

  974·00

  40·00

  TABLE B

  RATES OF DUTY ON GOODS VEHICLES USED FOR DRAWING TRAILERS

  1.

  Weight unladen of vehicle

  4.

  Description of vehicle

  2. Exceeding

  3. Not exceeding

  Rate of duty

  £

  1. Showmen's goods vehicles—…

  —

  —

  41·00

  2. Other goods vehicles—… …

  —

  l½ tons

  41·00

  l½ tons

  3 tons

  55·00

  3 tons

  4 tons

  92·00

  4 tons

  6 tons

  124·00

  6 tons

  9 tons

  154·00

  9 tons

  —

  168·00

  PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR PART II OF SCHEDUELE 5 TO ACT OF 1971

  Description of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1. Vehicles not exceeding seven horse power, if registered under the Roads Act 1920 for the first time before 1st January 1947… … … … … … …

  50·00

  2. Vehicles not included above… … … … … … … … … …

  70·00

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94(Ways and Means motions):
  The House divided:Ayes 322,Noes 297

  Division No. 104]

  [11.05 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Durant, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alison, Michael

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Elliott, Sir William

  Arnold, Tom

  Emery, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Eyre, Reginald

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

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

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Baker, Kenneth (St, M'bone)

  Farr, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fell, Anthon y

  Banks, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthon y

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Forman, Nigel

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Best, Keith

  Fox, Marcus

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, John

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Blaker, Peter

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Body, Richard

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodhart, Philip

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Goodhew, Victor

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Gow, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brotherton, Michael

  Grant, Anthon y (Harrow C)

  Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Gray, Hamish

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grieve, Percy

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

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

  Buck, Antony

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Grist, Ian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grylls, Michael

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hawkins, Paul

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Churchill, W, S.

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Henderson, Barry

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hicks, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James

  Cope, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas ("Gr'th'm)

  Corrie, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Hooson, Tom

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hordern, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Crouch, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D,(G'Idf'd)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Dover, Denshore

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Jessel, Toby

  140

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kershaw, Anthon y

  Porter, Barry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Knox, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lamont, Norman

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lang, Ian

  Raison, Timothy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Renton, Tim

  Lee, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant &W'loo)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Robert s, Wyn (Conway)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rossi, Hugh

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  MacGregor, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Scott, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Major, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Shersby, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Silvester, Fred

  Marshall Michael (Arundel)

  Sims, Roger

  Mart en, Neil (Banbury)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Dudley

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Speller, Tony

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  May hew, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stanley, John

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Steen, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Martin

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Monro, Hector

  Stokes, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moore, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Myles, David

  Thompson, Donald

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Needham, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nelson, Anthon y

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Newton, Tony

  Trippier, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Trotter, Neville

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Waddington, David

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Wakeham, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Parris, Matthew

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wall, Patrick

  141

  Waller, Gary

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Walters, Dennis

  Wilkinson, John

  Ward, John

  Williams, D, (Montgomery)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Watson, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wheeler, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whitney, Raymond

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthon y Berry.

  Wickenden, Keith

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dunnett, Jack

  Adams, Allen

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Allaun, Frank

  Eadie, Alex

  Alton, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Ashton, Joe

  English, Michael

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Bagier, Gordon A, T.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Field, Frank

  Beith, A.J.

  Fitch, Alan

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Fitt, Gerard

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Ford, Ben

  Bradley, Tom

  Forrester, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Foulkes, George

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

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

  Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

  Freud, Clement

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ian

  George, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ginsburg, David

  Cant, R. B.

  Golding, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gourlay, Harry

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Graham, Ted

  Cartwright, John

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

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

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Hardy, Peter

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Cook, Robin F.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cowans, Harry

  Haynes, Frank

  Craigen, J. M.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Crowther, J, S.

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

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  HomeRobertson, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Homewood, William

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Dalyell, Tam

  Horam, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Howells, Geraint

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Huckfield, Les

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dixon, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dobson, Frank

  John, Brynmor

  Dormand, Jack

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Douglas, Dick

  Johnston, Russell Inverness

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunlop, John

  Kerr, Russell

  Dunn, James A.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  142

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lambie, David

  Roper, John

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ryman, John

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Lewis, Hon (Carlisle)

  Sever, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lyon, Alexander York)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Short, Mrs Renæe

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silverman, Julius

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Soley, Clive

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMahon, Andrew

  Spriggs, Leslie

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stallard, A. W.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Magee, Bryan

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David

  Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Gooled)

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Jack

  Manrtin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tilley, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tinn, James

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, R, C. (Soton Itchen)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Morton, George

  Wainwright, R, (Colne V)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Walker, Rt Hon H, (D'caster);

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Watkins, David

  Newens, Stanley

  Weetch, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Welsh, Michael

  O'Halloran, Michael

  White, Frank R.

  O'Neill, Martin

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Whitlock, William

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Park, George

  Wi1ley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Parker, John

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Powel1, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Race, Reg

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Woodall, Alec

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Richardson, Jo

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Robert s, Albert (Normanton)

  Wright, Sheila

  Robert s, Allan (Bootle)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Robert s, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Robert son, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  12. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ADMINISTRATION
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made for—

  (a) repealing section 94(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979;

  (b) amending section 14(2) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 and repealing sections 85 to 88 of that Act;

  143

  (c) increasing the minimum amount for repayments under sections 17 and 18(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, prescribing a minimum amount for repayments under section 19 of that Act and preventing the payment of drawback where an application can be made under that section.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  I3. VALUE ADDED TAX: REGISTRATION
  That
  (1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 1972 (liability to be registered)—
  18

  (a) for "£4,000 there shall be substituted "£5,000"; and

  (b) for "£13,500", in each place, there shall be substituted "£15,000";

  and in section 20(1) of that Act (registration of local authorities) for "£13,500", in both places, there shall be substituted "£15,000".
  (2) In paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 1 (termination of liability to be registered)—

  (a) for "£13,500", in both places, there shall be substituted "£15,000"; and

  (b) for "£12,500" there shall be substituted "£14,000".

  (3) Paragraph 1 above shall come into force on 11th March 1981 and paragraph 2 above on 1st June 1981.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  I4. VALUE ADDED TAX: VALUATION
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made for amending Schedule 3 to the Finance Act 1972.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  I5. CAR TAX: EXTENSION TO MOTOR CYCLES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—
  (1) Section 52 of the Finance Act 1972 shall be amended as follows

  (a) in subsection (3) the words "has three or more wheels" shall be omitted;

  (b) in subsection (4)(a) for the words "vehicles capable of accommodating only one person" there shall be substituted the words "vehicles having three or more wheels and capable of accommodating only one person".

  (2) The above provisions shall come into force on 1st April 1981 but car tax shall not by virtue of those provisions be chargeable on any vehicle imported on or after that date if it was exported from the United Kingdom before that date and was before being exported registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  16. CAR TAX: IMPORT AND EXPORT
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—
  (1) For paragraph (b) of section 52(1) of the Finance Act 1972 (charge of car tax on vehicles made or registered in the United Kingdom by person not registered under Schedule 7 to that Act or under the corresponding provisions in force in the Isle of Man) there shall be substituted—
  144
  "(b) made or registered in, or imported into, the United Kingdom by any other person except a person registered under Schedule 7 to the Value Added Tax and Other Taxes Act 1973 (an Act of Tynwald)."
  (2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to that Act (persons by whom car tax is payable) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the words "and
  (aa) if the vehicle is imported by a person not registered under this Schedule as if it were a duty of excise chargeable on importation; and".
  (3) The provisions of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 7 as amended by paragraph (2) above shall become sub-paragraph (1) and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—
  "(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and, except where the contrary intention appears, any other enactments (including provisions of regulations or other instruments having statutory effect) relating generally to excise duties on imported goods, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, shall have effect, with such exceptions and adaptations as the Commissioners may by regulations prescribe, as if chargeable vehicles in respect of which tax is payable in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)(aa) above were liable to a duty of excise on importation and as if the tax were that duty.
  (3) The following enactments shall be excepted from those which are to have effect as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above

  (a) sections 43(5), 1.25, 126, and 127(1)(b) of the said Act of 1979;

  (b) the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979; and

  (c) sections 8 and 9 of the Isle of Man Act 1979.".

  (4) Paragraph 7 of the said Schedule 7 shall be amended as follows—

  (a) there shall be omitted in sub-paragraph (a) the words "and was not registered before it was exported" and in sub-paragraph (b) the words "and is not registered"— and

  (b) after the words "repay it" there shall be inserted the words "subject, in the case of a vehicle registered before exportation, to such conditions as they think fit".

  (5) The above provisions shall come into force on 1st April 1981.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  17. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR I98I–82)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—
  (1) Income for the year 1981–82 shall be charged at the basic rate of 30 per cent.;
  and

  (a) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as exceeds the basic rate limit at such higher rates as are specified in the Table below; and

  (b) in respect of so much of the investment income included in an individual's total income as exceeds the investment income threshold at the additional rate of 15 per cent.

  TABLE

  Higher rate bands

  Higher rate

  The first

  40 per cent.

  The second

  45 per cent.

  The third

  50 per cent.

  The fourth

  55 per cent.

  The fifth

  60 per cent.

  (2) Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1980 (increase of basic rate limit, higher rate bands and investment income threshold) shall not apply for the year 1981–82.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 ('Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  18. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL RELIEFS)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—
  (1) Section 24(5) of the Finance Act 1980 (increase of personal reliefs) shall not apply for the year 1981–82.
  (2) In section 18 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (relief for blind persons)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (relief for one blind person) for the words following paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words "he shall be entitled to a deduction of £360 from his total income";

  (b) in subsection (2) (relief for blind couple)—

  (i) paragraph (c), together with the word "and" preceding it, shall be omitted;

  (ii) for the words following that paragraph there shall be substituted "he shall be entitled to a deduction of £720 from his total income".

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions):—
  The House divided:Ayes 317, Noes 266.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together in one Question motions Nos. 19 to 32.

  33. CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX
  Motions made, and Question,
  That charges to capital transfer tax may be imposed by provisions—

  (a) amending paragraph 19 of Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1975;

  (b) amending paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to that Act;

  (c) in place of Part I of Schedule 8 to that Act

  (d) repealing paragraph 7(2)(b) of Schedule 10 to that Act;

  (e) amending section 114 of the Finance Act 1976;

  (f) relating to successive chargeable transfers

  (g) relating to reversionary interests in settled property.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions):—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 262.

  Division No. 105]

  [11.17 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Alison, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Corrie, John

  Aspinwall,Jack

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Crouch, David

  Baker, Kenneth (St, M'bone)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Denshore

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Durant, Tony

  Best, Keith

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Blackburn, John

  Emery, Peter

  Blaker, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Body, Richard

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Farr, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fell, Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Bright, Graham

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Brittan, Leon

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

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Brotherton, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fox, Marcus

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Budgen, Nick

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fry, Peter

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Galbraith, Hon T, G. D.

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Cadbury, jocelyn

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Goodhew, Victor

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorst, John

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

  Gow, Ian

  146

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Gray, Hamish

  Mellor, David

  Grieve, Percy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monro, Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Mooro, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mudd, David

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murphy, Christopher

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Myles, David

  Heddle, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Henderson, Barry

  Needham, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Newton, Tony

  Hill, James

  Normanton, Tom

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hooson, Tom

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

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

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Parris, Matthew

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Porter, Barry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Knox, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lamont, Norman

  Raison, Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Latham, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Renton, Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lee, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rossi, Hugh

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rost, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Royle, Sir Anthon y

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Madel, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Major, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marland, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Shersby, Michael

  Marshal I Michael (Arundel)

  Silvester, Fred

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Sims, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mather, Carol

  Smith, Dudley

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Speed, Keith

  Mawby, Ray

  Speller, Tony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spence, John

  147

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waddington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wakeham, John

  Squire, Robin

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stainton, Keith

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Stanley, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stevens, Martin

  Walters, Dennis

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, John

  Watson, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Tebbit, Norman

  Whitney, Raymond

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wickenden, Keith

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trippier, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthon y Berry.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dalyell, Tam

  Adams, Allen

  Davidson, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Alton, David

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashton, Joe

  Dempsey, James

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey)

  Dewar, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A, T.

  Dixon, Donald

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Dormand, Jack

  Beith, A, J.

  Douglas, Dick

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunlop, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dunn, James A.

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Eastham, Ken

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

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

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

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

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  English, Michael

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

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Field, Frank

  Cant, R. B.

  Fitch, Alan

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fitt, Gerard

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Cartwright, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ford, Ben

  Coleman, Donald

  Forrester, John

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Foster, Derek

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foulkes, George

  Cook, Robin F.

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

  Cowans, Harry

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Freud, Clement

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Crowther, J, S.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Cryer, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Golding, John

  148

  Gourlay, Harry

  Newens, Stanley

  Graham, Ted

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Ogden, Eric

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Palmer, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Park, George

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parker, John

  Haynes, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Penhaligon, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

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

  Race, Reg

  Home Robert son, John

  Radice, Giles

  Homewood, William

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Horam, John

  Robert s, Albert (Normanton)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Robert s, Allan (Bootle)

  Howells, Geraint

  Robert s, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Huckfield, Les

  Robert son, George

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roper, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rowlands, Ted

  John, Brynmor

  Ryman, John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sever, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Short, Mrs Renee

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lambie, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Snape, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Litherland, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Stoddart, David

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Stott, Roger

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strang, Gavin

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Straw, Jack

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McKelvey, William

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Thomas, Dr R, (Carmarthen)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Tilley, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Tinn, James

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Maxton, John

  Watkins, David

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weetch, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Michael

  Mikardo,Ian

  White, Frank R.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Miller, Dr M S. (E Kilbride)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Whitlock, William

  Mitchell, R, C. (Soton Itchen)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Morton, George

  Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

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

  149

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Winnick, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wright, Sheila

  Division No. 106]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Alexander, Richard

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Alison, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Ancram, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Cope, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St, M'bone)

  Corrie, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Banks, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthon y

  Critchley, Julian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Crouch, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Benyon, Thomas ("A'don)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Best, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dover, Denshore

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Blackburn, John

  Durant, Tony

  Blaker, Peter

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Body, Richard

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Emery, Peter

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bright, Graham

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Brittan, Leon

  Farr, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fell, Anthon y

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)>

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Buck, Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fox, Marcus

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Butcher, John

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Fry, Peter

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  152

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Major, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marshall Michael(Arundel)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Grant, Anthon y (HarrowC)

  Mawby, Ray

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grieve, Percy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Mellor, David

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Ian(Meriden)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moore, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mudd, David

  Heddle, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Henderson, Barry

  Myles, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hicks, Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Newton, Tony

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Normanton, Tom

  Hooson, Tom

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Howells, Geraint

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hunt John (Ravensbourne)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Parris, Matthew

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Patten, John(Oxfbrd)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Porter, Barry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Knox, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lamont, Norman

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lang, Ian

  Raison, Timothy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ronton, Tim

  Lee, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Lloyd, Ian (HavantA W'loo)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rossi, Hugh

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Royle, Sir Anthon y

  MacGregor, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Scott, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Col in (Herefbtt)

  153

  Shepherd, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Silvester, Fred

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Dudley

  Waddington, David

  Speed, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Speller, Tony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spence, John

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wall, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin

  Walters, Dennis

  Stainton, Keith

  Ward, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanley, John

  Watson, John

  Steen, Anthon y

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stevens, Martin

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wheeler, John

  Stewart A(ERenfrewshire)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Stokes, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Williams, D, (Montgomery)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thompson, Donald

  Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthon y Berry.

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Crowther, J, S.

  Adams, Allen

  Cryer, Bob

  Allaun, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Atkinson, H, (H'gey)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bagier, GordonA, T.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Deakins, Eric

  Beith, A, J.

  Dempsey, James

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Dewar, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tn)

  Dixon, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dobson, Frank

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dormand, Jack

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Douglas, Dick

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bradley, Tom

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunn, James A.

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Eadie, Alex

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn&P)

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

  Campbell, Ian

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  English, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Cartwright, John

  Field, Frank

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fitch, Alan

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Cohen, Stanley

  Flannery, Martin

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cook, Robin F.

  Ford, Ben

  Cowans, Harry

  Forrester, John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Foster, Derek

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  154

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

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Freud, Clement

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Morton, George

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  George, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Newens, Stanley

  Ginsburg, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Golding, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Graham, Ted

  O'Halloran, Michael

  G rant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hardy, Peter

  Palmer, Arthur

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Park, George

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Parker, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pendry, Tom

  Haynes, Frank

  Penhaligon, David

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Prescott, John

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Race, Reg

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

  Radice, Giles

  HomeRobertson, John

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Homewood, William

  Richardson, Jo

  Hooley, Frank

  Robert s, Albert (Normanton)

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Huckfield, Les

  Robert son, George

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Mark(Durham)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Roper, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

  Ryman, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sever, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kerr, Russell

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Short, Mrs Renee

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silverman, Julius

  Leighton, Ronald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Soley, Clive

  Litherland, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lyon, Alexander(York)

  Stallard, A, W.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  McGuire, Michael(Ince)

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Magee, Bryan

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tilley, John

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Tinn, James

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Torney, Tom

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wainwright, E, (Dearne V)

  Maxton, John

  Wainwright, R(Colne V)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Meacher, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Welsh, Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  White, Frank R.

  Miller, Dr M, S. (E Kilbride)

  White, J, (G'gowPollok)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  155

  Whitlock, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

  Wright, Sheila

  Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean

  Winnick, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Question on motions Nos. 34 to 40.

  19. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR I98I–82)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That the limit imposed by paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 1974 shall, subject to any reduction to be made under that paragraph, be £25,000 for the year 1981–82.—[Sir
  Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  20. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR I980)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1980 at the rate of 52 per cent.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  2I. ADVANCE CORPORATION TAXX (RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR I98I)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That the rate of advance corporation tax for the financial year 1981 shall be three-sevenths.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  22. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—

  (a) the small companies rate for the financial year 1980 shall be 40 per. cent.; and

  (b) the fraction by reference to which corporation tax charged on income is reduced under section 95(2) of the Finance Act 1972 shall for that financial year be two-twenty-fifths—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  23. BENEFITS IN KIND (CARS)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That in paragraph 5(1)(b) of Part II of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1976 (increase of cash equivalent where use of car for business travel does not amount to more than 1000 miles) for "1000" there shall be substituted "2500".—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  24. STOCK RELIEF
  Motion made, and Question,
  That the relief provided by Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1976 may be replaced by new provisions applying to periods of account ending on or after 14th November 1980.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  25. PAYMENTS FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.
  Motion made, and Question,
  150
  That provision may be made withdrawing the relief provided by paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 8 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and altering the relief provided by paragraph 7 of that Schedule.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways
  and Means motions), and agreed to.

  26. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made—

  (a) for amending, in relation to sales and other events occurring after 17th December 1980, the provisions relating to writing-down allowances, balancing allowances and balancing charges in respect of industrial buildings and structures, commercial buildings in enterprise zones and qualifying hotels;

  (b) for extending references to sales in those provisions and in the other provisions of Chapter I of Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1968 so as to include transfers otherwise than by way of sale; and

  (c) for extending the cases to which section 78 of that Act applies.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  27. SETTLEMENTS
  Motion made, and Question,
  That charges to income tax may be imposed by provisions amending or supplementing sections 451 and 454 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways
  and Means motions), and agreed to.

  28. PREVENTION OF TAX AVOIDANCE
  Motion made, and Question,
  That charges to income tax may be imposed by provisions amending or supplementing sections 478 and 480 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  29. INSURANCE COMPANIES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made with respect to the division of income, gains and losses between different classes of business in the case of insurance companies with income, gains or losses arising from certain government securities.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  30. WRITE-OFF OF GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT: RESTRICTION OF TAX LOSSES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made for restricting the relief available for losses and other amounts in the case of any body where an amount of government investment in that body is written-off.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  31. RELIEF FOR LOSSES ON UNQUOTED SHARES IN TRADING COMPANIES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That amendments may be made in the definitions of "group"., "holding company" and "investment company" in section 37(12) of the Finance Act 1980.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  32. CAPITAL GAINS
  Motion made, and Question,
  That charges to capital gains tax, corporation tax may be imposed by provisions—

  (a) replacing section 19(3) of the capital Gains Tax Act 1979;

  (b) amending section 79 of that Act;

  (c) relating to property held on trust;

  (d) relating to cases in which relief is given under section 79 of the Finance Act 1980.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  34. STAMP DUTY: SALES OF HOUSES AT DISCOUNT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.
  Motion made, and Question,
  That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 23rd March 1981 and ending thirty-one days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
  (1) Where a conveyance or transfer to which this paragraph applies is subject contingently to the payment of any money (whether by virtue of that conveyance or transfer or otherwise), then notwithstanding section 57 of the Stamp Act 1891, that money shall not be deemed to be part of the consideration in respect of which the conveyance or transfer is chargeable with ad valorem duty.
  (2) For the purposes of section 74(5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act 1910 the consideration for any conveyance or transfer to which this paragraph applies shall be deemed to be valuable consideration.
  (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) above apply to any conveyance or transfer on sale of a dwelling-house (including the grant of a lease) at a discount by—

  (a) any Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department;

  (b) a local authority within the meaning of Part V of the Housing Act 1957, a county council, a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 or in Scotland a regional, district or islands council, the common good of such a council or any trust under its control;

  (c) the Housing Corporation;

  (d) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

  (e) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive;

  (f) a housing association registered under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 or Article 124 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;

  (g) a development corporation established by an order made or having effect as if made under the New Towns Act 1965 or the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 or an urban development corporation established by an order made under section 135 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980;

  (h) the Commission for the New Towns or a new town commission established under section 7 of the New Towns Act (Northern Ireland) 1965;

  (i) the Development Board for Rural Wales;

  (j) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

  (k) a police authority within the meaning of section 62(b) of the Police Act 1964 or section 2(1) or 19(9)(b) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, or the Police Authority for Northern Ireland;

  (l) an Education and Libraries Board established under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972;

  (m) any person mentioned in paragraph (e), (i), (j) or (1) of section 1(10) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

  (4) The foregoing provisions shall apply to instruments executed on or after 23rd March 1981.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  35. STAMP DUTY: SHARED OWNERSHIP TRANSACTIONS
  Motion made, and Question,
  That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 23 March 1981 and ending thirty-one days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
  (1) Section 97 of the Finance Act 1980 (shared ownership transactions) shall have effect with the amendments specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
  (2) In subsection (1) after the word "value" there shall be inserted the words "or sum".
  (3) In subsection (2)—
  (a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
  "(b) is granted partly in consideration of a premium calculated by reference to—

  (i) the market value of the dwelling, or

  (ii) a sum calculated by reference to that value, and partly in consideration of rent"; and

  (b) in paragraph (d) for the words "paragraph (b) above" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (b)(i) above or, as the case may be, the sum referred to in paragraph (b)(ii) above" and at the end there shall be added the words "or as the case may be, to that sum".
  (4) Where a lease is granted by a body mentioned in subsection (3) of the said section 97 which—

  (a) is of a dwelling for the exclusive use of the lesso:, or, if there are joint lessees, of those lessees;

  (b) provides that the lessee may on payment of a sum require the terms of the lease to be altered so that the rent payable under it is reduced;

  (c) is granted partly in consideration of rent and partly in consideration of a premium calculated by reference to—

  (i) the premium obtainable on the open market for the grant of a lease containing the same terms as the lease but with the substitution for the rent payable under the lease of the minimum rent, or

  (ii) a sum calculated by reference to that premium; and

  (d) contains a statement of the premium referred to in paragraph (c)(i) above, or as the case may be the sum referred to in paragraph (c)(ii) above, and the minimum rent and a statement to the effect that the parties intend duty to be charged in accordance with this section by reference to that premium, or as the case may be that sum, and that rent,

  paragraph (5) below shall apply; and in this paragraph "minimum rent" in relation to any lease means the lowest rent which could become payable under the lease if it were altered as mentioned in paragraph (b) above at the date of the grant.
  (5) Where this paragraph applies the lease shall be chargeable to stamp duty as if the premium paid by the lessee were equal to the premium, or as the case may be the sum, stated in the lease in accordance with paragraph (4)(d) above and the rent payable were as so stated.
  (6) The foregoing provisions shall apply to instruments executed on or after 23rd March 1981.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  36. DEVELOPMENT LAND TAX
  Motion made, and Question,
  That in connection with provisions for deferring liability to development land tax charges may be imposed under section 27 of the Development Land Tax Act 1976.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  37. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made—

  (a) for denying supplement under section 2(9) of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 to—

  (i) expenditure claimed for a claim period ending after 31st December 1980 and incurred after the end of

  157
  the chargeable period in which a net profit first accrues to a participator from an oil field; and

  (ii) expenditure under certain contracts entered into after 1st July 1980 which provide for deferred payments;

  (b) for limiting relief under section 9 of that Act to a number of chargeable periods determined by reference to the chargeable period mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) above; and

  (c) for taking into account for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax certain payments made to participators by the Secretary of State or the Department of Commerce for Northern Ireland by reference to licences granted under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 or the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  38. SUPPLEMENTARY PETROLEUM DUTY.
  Motion made, and Question,
  That a tax shall be charged on the gross profits (calculated as Parliament may determine) which accrue from oil fields determined for the purposes of Part I of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 to persons who are, or are treated for the purposes of that Part of that Act as, participators in the fields.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  39. SPECIAL TAX ON BANKING DEPOSITS.
  Motion made, and Question,
  That a tax shall be charged on persons carrying on banking businesses on 10 March 1981 by reference to certain deposits held by them in the last quarter of 1980.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  40. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That is is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from tax.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the two procedure resolutions.

  PROCEDURE (EXCHANGE CONTROL)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may—

  (a) make provision for the purpose of controlling the acquisition of sterling by persons resident outside the scheduled territories as defined in the Exchange Control Act 1947 and the borrowing of foreign currency by persons resident in the United Kingdom; and

  158

  (b) amend the references to authorised dealers in foreign currency or gold in section 2 of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

  (a) provisions for charging income tax under Schedule E on payments of unemployment benefit and supplementary allowance;

  (b) provisions relating to sick pay;

  (c) Provisions relating to the taxation of benefits received by employees who by reason of their employment are provided with cars, petrol, credit tokens, transport vouchers or medical insurance;

  (d) provisions relating to relief for interest;

  (e) provisions relating to the deduction of tax from payments made to companies in respect of services provided by workers supplied by those companies;

  (f) provisions relating to the abolition of excise licences for dealing wholesale in certain alcoholic liquors.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorize—
  (1) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable on or after 1 April 1982 under section 47(2) of the Irish Land Act 1903 or section 26(2) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920;
  (2) the payment out of National Loans Fund (with recourse to the Consolidated Fund) of any sums payable after that date under section 16(7) of the National Loans Act 1968 in respect of securities issued under the Northern Ireland Land Act 1925;
  (3) payments out of and onto the National Loans Fund in consequence of provisions relating to exchange control.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Secretary Howell, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Nigel Lawson.

  FINANCE
  Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue and to make future provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly by Mr. Nigel Lawson and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  Town and Country Planning
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Ted Graham: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Areas) Special Development Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 246), dated 19 February 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we discuss the second prayer:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 245), dated 19 February 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be annulled.
  Mr. Graham: We are tonight to give approval—or not—to a series of what are laughingly called "minor amendments" to development control within our planning laws. I have no hesitation in saying, however, that the impact of these proposals could affect many ordinary householders more directly than the Budget proposals that the House has just passed.
  I begin by acknowledging that the Opposition support the general movement in the past 10 years towards simplifying the controls over both residential and commercial development. Mr. George Dobry made a series of detailed proposals intended to speed up and simplify our legislation, and we support those, but in our desire to remove the frustrations felt by builders, architects, commerce and industry as well as by the householder and the planning committee we must beware that we do not tip the balance detrimentally away from the best interests of the community simply because this offers the prospect of speed of decision or economy.
  We are dealing here with potential mistakes which, if made, can damn the planning system for ever. More important, a wrong approval can not only cause domestic and neighbourly strife; it may then stand, literally, as a monument to bureaucratic stupidity. Today's planning errors may become tomorrow's costly reminder that quick decisions are not always the cheapest, nor is the cheapest necessarily the best.
  Before examining the package of changes contained in the orders, we should remind ourselves of what the Secretary of State asserts that they will achieve. In answer to a question on 11 November 1980 he said:
  "We anticipate that the changes will achieve a worthwhile reduction in the load on the planning machine in England and Wales, enabling local authorities to reduce expenditure and concentrate on processing the more important applications more quickly and efficiently."—[Official Report, 11 November 1980; Vol. 992, c. 178.]
  Secondly, they are intended
  "to remove the necessity for local planning authorities to process large numbers of planning applications for minor development of little significance in the protection of public amenity."
  In the consultative document the Secretary of State referred to
  "small householder developments, the vast majority of them being completely uncontroversial."
  There we have it: the purpose of the proposals is to reduce
  "the load on the planning machine"
  and to "reduce expenditure", and they are "of little significance." Those three matters are the nub of the Government's case.
  We must not forget—and no doubt the Minister will remind us—that these amendments to the General
  160
  Development Order form but one part of a small piece of Government or departmental strategy to simplify, to speed, to make more efficient use of the planning system and to economise. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State reminded the House of these interlocking initiatives when we considered the planning fees aspect a short while ago. The 6 March issue of the journal Planning, however, states:
  "From April 1st local authorities will find it more difficult to determine planning applications within eight weeks. That is the conclusion from a straw poll of planning authorities on the implications of the introduction of planning charges and new amendments to the general development order."
  Let us consider what the orders seek to achieve by allowing an extension, for instance, of industrial buildings—increasing permitted development without approval from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent., subject to a maximum increase in floor area to 750 square metres instead of 500 square metres at present.
  While the Opposition appreciate the value to the community of encouraging small businesses, in giving this amendment a fair wind we are concerned with some of the implications. Many a small industrial firm will be sated either within or adjacent to residential property. We shall therefore wish to ensure that in encouraging small businesses we do not do so at the expense of residential amenity. For instance, where will the extra 20 per cent. extension to be allowed in this come from? A likely source might well be land at present used for car parking or landscaping—both crucial uses if the factory is situated cheek by jowl with residential property. What steps has the Minister in mind to ensure that residential amenity is not sacrificed in order to expand the industrial use?
  I now turn to the proposals to allow a change of use from light industry or general industry to warehousing or storage, or vice versa, in premises below 235 square metres. The Government argue in favour of the change that it will stimulate and expand the small firm sector and encourage private sector investment in small industrial premises. However, in many areas the market rent for small warehousing units is higher than it is for light industrial units, and if the relaxation results in existing light industrial units being lost through conversion to warehousing, it would be the opposite of what the Minister desires. In any event, warehousing can often result in generating a greater traffic flow than light industrial. There is a case, in our view, for converting warehousing to light industrial, but there is none the other way round.
  The proposal that garages, stables, loose boxes and coach houses would not count as an enlargement of the dwelling house if they are sited 5 metres or more from the house but would be treated as buildings incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house could also have a damaging effect upon neighbouring properties. The proposed amendment would encourage an owner to site his garage so that he could retain the full permitted development tolerance for an extension to his house. In the absence of a rear access road, this would be achieved only by siting the garage a third of the way down his back garden. He would then be able to build the garage in whatever materials he chose. In permitted development there is no control over the form, materials and detailing of the building work. The visual impact of the uncontrolled development will increase in quantity, to the detriment of our visual amenity.

  161
  I welcome the exemptions from these orders as they apply to national parks, areas of outstanding beauty and conservation areas. It is right for the Secretary of State to be concerned to restrict a damaging effect on amenity in these cases. But what about the rest? I can do no better than to quote from a letter that I received from the Chelmsford borough council, in which it is stated:
  "It is interesting to note that the Government accepts that the proposed relaxations of control could have a 'significantly damaging effect on amenity' in, for example, conservation areas. It follows that a proposal which the Government concede may well damage amenity in a conservation area could also have a similar effect in other areas."
  Are we not in grave danger of aggravating and accentuating two classes of area in this country? That which is already enjoying a measure of protection is to be even more protected. Those areas outside the protected areas will, when the order comes into effect, be at the mercy of the jerrybuilder, the enthusiastic do-it-yourself merchant, and the neighbour who could not care less.
  Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the order simply extends the exemptions which already exist. His arguments are arguments of principle against having any exemptions at all.
  Mr. Graham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished the whole of my speech. He will see that I deal with the case for the exemptions. By virtue of the exemption in the conservation areas and the areas of special beauty, we shall have two classes of conservation area. We shall have those which were in existence before 1 April and those which come into existence after 1 April. In the case of those which were in existence before 1 April, the present limits of 10 per cent. or 50 cubic metres for extensions will continue to be applied. However, in the case of declarations after 1 April—regardless of when—properties within the new conservation areas will be permitted to develop up to 15 per cent., or 70 cubic metres, without planning permission. The local authority will be faced with the choice of tolerating the ridiculous situation of two conservation areas with wholly disproportionate standards or of applying to the Secretary of State for action on a special development order. Will that happen in every case?
  On 1 April, my local authority of Enfield will have 11 conservation areas. Most of them are of great charm and historical value. I refer, for example, to Enfield town, Church Street, Edmonton, Winchmore Hill Green, Forty Hill, Bulls Cross, and Ponders End. Different areas are in different situations. In future further conservation areas may be sought immediately adjacent to existing ones. Will it not look daft if some are restricted to 10 per cent. while others are entitled to a 15 per cent. development limit?
  Has the Secretary of State decided whether he will entertain local authority requests to include future conservation areas within the exclusions? Will he entertain requests to apply 10 per cent. and not 15 per cent. to specific conservation areas within an authority? Must the provision apply to them all? If the answer is that it can apply to one area, does that not create different classes of resident within an area? Does it not also raise the question of hybridity? Will the Minister comment on that possibility? Indeed, existing legislation envisages such a possibility.
  I turn to the proposal that gives the Opposition the greatest unease, namely the proposal to allow—as
  162
  permitted development—the enlargement of a house to increase from the present limit of 10 per cent., or 50 cubic metres, to 15 per cent., or 70 cubic metres. That is an increase of no less than 50 per cent. It would be churlish not to acknowledge the significant alteration that has been made by exempting terraced houses from the order. That could prove most helpful. However, one chief planning officer spoke to me after the modification had been made. He said "It will not reduce work, merely change it. In fact, it will change from consideration of the environmental aspects into a bureaucratic interpretation of rules about whether the property is a terrace, in a conservation area, an area of outstanding beauty and so on."
  Who wants this change? Local authorities do not want it. Local planning committees and planning officers do not want it; authorities both large and small are virtually unanimous about that. Like this Government, the Labour Government had a proposal foisted on them. The Labour Government consulted just as widely as this Government. They took account of the representations and withdrew the proposal. Consultation was a more meaningful concept under the Labour Government than it is now.
  Most of the representations that I have received have been against the proposals. I invite the Minister to tell us what evidence he has received of bodies and of individuals in favour of the measure. The representations that I have received from local authorities and others state that the present system is clear, fair and expeditious. There have been no complaints about the system. It is fair to neighbour and applicant alike. Time and again I am told that increasing permitted development for residential property will lead to a proliferation of complaints about larger extensions. That would negate any savings in staff time that might be gained from a reduced number of applications. Time will be spent on telling neighbours what is or is not permitted.
  Will the Secretary of State listen to the voices of householders? I listen to residents' associations and to the Federation of Enfield Residents' Associations, which represents 30,000 ratepayers in the London borough of Enfield. They have unanimously asked me to oppose the increase from 10 to 15 per cent. My ratepayers' association—the Bush Hill Park ratepayers' association—wrote to the Secretary of State. It told the right hon. Gentleman that any relaxation would open the door to undesirable and ill-planned development which would be detrimental to neighbouring properties. My own council, the London borough of Enfield, has been vigorous in opposing this development, and earlier attempts in 1977 were just as strongly resisted.
  The impact which a house extension may have is determined not only by its size but also by its position and characteristics. It is not unknown that even comparatively minor extensions, which may now be carried out without planning permission, may seriously affect the architectural quality of an entire street or reduce the quality of life for next-door neighbours.
  Let us consider the exemptions in schedule 1 for dormer windows. That is ludicrous. Some of the worst environmental visual slums result from dormer window extensions to the side or rear of houses, using the roof space. They are hideous eyesores if allowed to be treated unsympathetically. They cry out for control, yet the order excludes them from the permitted development tolerances.

  163
  Let me quote directly from three authorities which no doubt have made their views known to the Members serving their areas. First, Blaby council wrote:
  "Although a number of individuals will be less constrained by planning controls, even a greater number will be provoked by their absence.
  Although the number of applications would be reduced, additional time would be taken determining which proposals constituted permitted development and dealing with the enquiries and complaints which would be generated."
  I quote the views of the London borough of Barnet:
  "Proposal (a) in the consultation document is considered unacceptable in the Metropolitan area where density of development is already relatively high and would inevitably result in extensions which would be visually unsatisfactory and adversely affect the amenities of adjoining property. Furthermore, even though such a relaxation would result in a reduction in the number of applications for planning permission, there would be unlikely to be a reduction in the vetting procedures to define permitted development, and certainly no reduction in correspondence arising from developments actually undertaken."
  I now quote from a letter from the South Oxfordshire district council, a council which I am sure is well known to the Secretary of State. The chief planning officer, a Mr. Phillips, writes:
  "It is my personal opinion that a reasonable professional process will merely be replaced by a legalistic bureaucratic one …Changing the GDO will increase the work involved in volume and make the calculations more complex. No doubt the Ombudsman will confirm that disputes between neighbours very quickly become disputes between the aggrieved neighbour and the local planning authority, and explaining the legal aspects of permitted development is time consuming when the people concerned are obviously affected in an adverse way by the exercise of such permitted development rights."
  Mr. Phillips goes on to say:
  "I have given Mr. Heseltine, who is the Member of Parliament for a large part of this district, information to the effect that his proposals could reduce our applications by 5 per cent. in number but that overall our workload could well increase, and I gave the reasons outlined above. I feel very strongly that it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce legislative change to achieve bogus objectives."
  The same gentleman wrote to me after the modifications had been notified, saying:
  "I have repeatedly told the Secretary of State and the DoE, that dealing with an application is often quicker than arguing about whether it's permitted development, and a good deal more rewarding for the professional staff."
  These orders are a hotch-potch. However much the Secretary of State tries to justify them as needed or essential, however much he uses jargon or gimmicks, he will not do so in response to the demands of the people or the profession. He will seek to justify them on the grounds that they will add to his armoury of weapons in his fight against bureaucracy and waste. His zeal is misplaced, but, worse, he demeans and diminishes the work of a dedicated profession and democratically elected local councillors. He will gravely damage our environment; he will set neighbour against neighbour; he will bring our whole system of planning control into disrepute—all vainly to seek a reduction in public expenditure. In that he will fail, and we shall all be the poorer.
  12.4 am
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: Not for the first time, I have the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). Not for the first time, I must disagree with his interpretation of statutory instruments relating to town and country planning. I thank
  164
  the hon. Gentleman for the considerable tribute that, he paid to my profession of town and country planning. This gives me an opportunity of declaring whatever interest there may be in belonging to that profession.
  These orders are necessarily complicated and technical, though I welcome them very much. After all, they come originally from orders introduced about two or three years ago by a Labour Secretary of State for the Enviromnent. Those orders were withdrawn after considerable criticisms were made, basically from two areas: from the environmentalists, to put it in shorthand, led by the redoubtable Lord Duncan-Sandys, and by local authority associations which were concerned about what they thought would be the intensity of development not requiring planning permission in certain areas of the country.
  Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend ought also to add the Liberal Party, whose representatives are singularly missing.
  Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has an expert knowledge of town and country planning matters. I did not know that they extended to comments on political parties.
  Where I disagree with the hon. Member for Edmonton is that I believe that the Secretary of State or the Minister has carefully considered the very genuine criticisms that were made about the original order. The whole purpose of this order is to meet those criticisms. So, as the hon. Member says, there have been excluded from this order increased exemption for minor developments not requiring planning permission, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and the 5,000-plus in conservation areas.
  In dealing with objections about intensity of development, the Minister has introduced the special exemption for terraced housing, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, very importantly, exemption where the extension of the development would take over 50 per cent.—I am again speaking in shorthand—of the curtilage of the premises. I believe that those exemptions meet the serious criticisms and worries that were raised by town and country planners, environmentalists and local authority associations.
  I think that I can emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) to the hon. Member for Edmonton. If no exemptions existed stow, I think that the hon. Member for Edmonton would have a point in talking about the extra work in which local planning authorities would be involved in vetting whether applications had been received or not received and whether they needed planning permission. These applications, in any case, would have to come in under building regulations. However, as exemptions already exist, there can be no extra work involved for local planning authorities. I, for one, disagree with my borough, Barnet, if it has made that criticism.
  When the great Town and Country Planning Act was introduced in 1948.——
  Mr. Latham: 1947.
  Mr. Chapman: The Act came into force on 1 January 1948, but the Bill was passed in 1947. I do not believe that there was any intention then that town and country planning should be involved with modest extensions to

  165
  either residences or industrial premises. The machine has become far too bureaucratic, and this change is a step in the right direction.
  I welcome the orders and hope that the House passes them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say how many fewer applications will be made as a result of the orders. When the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) introduced his draft orders three years ago, he talked about a reduction of 20 per cent. in the number of applications. I always thought that that was slightly exaggerated. I believe that these orders will save about 10 per cent. or possibly 15 per cent. If that is so the 10 or 15 per cent. is at the bottom end—the minor applications—although they might cause local controversy, this will clear the system so that planning officers can deal as thoroughly but more expeditiously with the more significant applications.
  Statistics provided by the local planning authority associations show that, although Parliament has laid down a two-month period for determining planning applications, many take much longer. That is particularly true of the more significant applications. Time is money. Time is wasted when applications take much more than eight weeks to determine. In an age of inflation and of unemployment in the construction industry, I hope that the planning professions will co-operate to see whether they can improve on their performance.
  A planning application is either right or wrong. It does not take more than eight weeks to determine whether it is right or wrong. I do not suggest that the system should be quickly bypassed or that bad decisions should be taken. I hope that the orders are passed and that as a result the more significant applications are equally thoroughly but more expeditiously determined.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I wish to make a brief contribution which does not relate to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who is an expert in these matters. It relates indirectly more to the point made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about Ponders End. I welcome the orders in general. However, S.I. No 246 seems to engrain into planning legislation
  "an area of outstanding natural beauty".
  I should be ruled out of order if I outlined what that animal is. It has little planning status. We seem to be taking a step towards developing this powerless institution.
  Of course, I believe that beauty, whether in the countryside or the town, must be protected. It is clear that national parks and conservation areas, which the hon. Member seeks to attach to Ponders End, have meaning in countryside and town. But an area of outstanding natural beauty is a vague concept. It is a vague creation of British bureaucracy at its best. We try to arrive at the right decisions by empowering a whole range of bodies to take decisions about an area of countryside. If one wants to see the nonsense that that sometimes produces, one has only to look at the Blackmore Vale, which is not in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and the Winterbourne Valley, which is. There is no possible reason for such a designation. One argues that Cranborne Chase should be designated because it will be treated differently if it is not.
  My argument is that we should regard the whole of the countryside differently. If the planning rules that apply in
  166
  the order relate to beautiful areas, whether in the town or the countryside, they should apply to countryside across the board.
  "Area of outstanding natural beauty"
  does not constitute a sufficient definition of such an area. We should protect all countryside, whether beautiful or not. I hope that careful consideration will be given to this particular planning designation of an area of outstanding natural beauty to see whether it is the right and relevant way to designate those parts of our countryside that need protection.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Roger Moate: I wish to make a brief intervention. It is perhaps inevitable, after the matters that we have debated earlier today—the Budget and all the difficult decisions that we have had to make in that regard—that the House wishes to reach a speedy conclusion and to pay less attention to these orders than they deserve. But the amendments to the General Development Order are significant, and it is regrettable that a debate of this importance is overshadowed by what went before.
  I have sympathy with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I suspect that he will not carry the matter to a vote, but he has expressed the anxieties of many people who are deeply concerned about this relaxation of planning controls.
  We are in a dilemma. We want a relaxation of planning controls, and at the same time we want to protect the rights of individuals to protest against developments of neighbouring properties that are intrusive upon their own properties, upon their own rights. I know of many cases in my constituency where there have been objections to developments alongside—garages and extensions—that have caused major loss of amenity to individuals.
  No matter how many modifications are introduced in these orders as compared with those introduced by the Labour Government, there will still be many people who feel that they have suffered an injustice and lost some rights to protest against extensions of a neighbouring property that would deprive them of light, amenities and so on. It worries me that we are debating the matter in this way.
  I do not pretend that I know the answer. As I said, we are in a dilemma. We want to relax bureaucracy and increase individual freedom, and yet we shant to protect individuals. I do not wish to be too pompous, but Edmund Burke said that if we could not have reform without injustice we should not have reform. Yet we are engaging in a reform that will create injustices for some individuals, and that worries me.
  The point was put effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) that we are exempting numerous conservation areas from many of these relaxations, as well as areas of outstanding natural beauty. We are saying that in those areas individuals will not be free to carry out extensions but that in other areas they can do so. We are drawing a black and white line and making a clear definition between areas. But the world is not like that. There are many grey areas where people are entitled to similar protections.
  Clearly, I—and, I suspect, the House—will not vote against the orders, and while I understand my right hon. Friend's motives in seeking to relax and remove many petty restrictions I still believe that in years to come many

  167
  individual Members of Parliament will receive complaints that will arise as a direct result of these relaxations. Some of us may perhaps regret the way in which they will have been passed this evening.
  12.20 am
  Mr. Tony Durant: I rise on a small matter and I shall be grateful if the Minister will consider it. It relates to
  "Class III—Changes of use"
  which raises the whole subject of the change of use of premises. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion No. 220 on planning regulations for sex shops. This issue is causing great anxiety in many urban areas, although it is not strictly related to the statutory instrument. In my constituency there was difficulty when a sex shop was opened next door to the local Baptist church. That was not the most popular of decisions in my constituency.
  There are anxieties on this issue. As the law stands, there is no town and country planning regulation to deal with the matter, no way of stopping such developments. The Department should see whether there is some way of empowering the local authority at least to regulate these occasional undesirable developments in unfortunate circumstances such as that in my constituency.
  12.22 am
  Mr. Roger Sims: In suburban parts of London such as my constituency there is a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the changes incorporated in the orders. We all like the idea that our homes are our castles and that we are free to do what we like in them, even to the point of extending them, but we are not too keen on the chap next door doing the same. That sums up the attitude in my constituency. It applies particularly where there are not only a substantial amount of residential development but, here and there, small pockets of industrial development.
  Inevitably, residents complain periodically about noise, dust and dirt from adjacent industrial facilities. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explain why it is proposed that the permitted extension of a dwelling-house shall be up to 15 per cent. while for industrial developments it is 20 per cent.? It seems somewhat illogical to my constituents who live near these pockets of industrial development that industrial property can be expanded to a greater extent than can private residential property.
  12.23 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I shall commence by trying to answer some of the points raised by my hon. Friends and then turn to those made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Chapman) gave the entire justification for what we are doing. I greatly welcomed the way in which he commented upon it. He asked specific questions about the changes. We estimate that there are about 50,000 planning applications a year dealing with domestic extensions of this kind. Since there is a total of 500,000 planning applications of all kinds, that number represents 10 per cent. We expect the changes we are proposing, with the
  168
  changes in the relationship between district and county authorities on planning and with the finishing of the structure plan operation, to result in a reduction in public spending of about £10 million.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) sought to raise the interesting point about areas of outstanding natural beauty. I take note of his comments and have sympathy concerning the problems he described. However, they are not directly related to the orders. I shall write to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked about intrusions on neighbours' rights, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a similar point. We accept that in a number of developments there would and could be an increase in friction between neighbours, but that happens under the present operations with a permitted 10 per cent. increase in size. The safeguards that we have built into the system, especially in relation to terraced properties and two-storey extensions and the boundaries of properties, should go a long way towards reducing the cause of friction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) asked whether the orders would make any difference to the problem of sex shops. They will not do so. It is only fair to recognise that that matter is causing widespread anxiety. Although the matter does not fall within planning law at the moment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is viewing these developments with some concern and will, no doubt, consider further what, if anything, can be done.
  Mr. Moate: The order specifically refers to tripe shops and cats' meat shops. How many tripe shops and cars' meat shops are there compared with sex shops?
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. The order also refers to shops for the sale of pet animals and birds. However, I must not be drawn too far away from the massive importance of the matters under discussion.
  We cannot have it two ways. Either we believe that there is a desire for a real relaxation of planning controls, with a legitimate right to relax controls where possible, or we do not. As the hon. Member for Edmonton recognised, the Labour Government closely considered the matter in 1976 and 1977. In 1976, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was reported in a press release as follows:
  "Mr. Silkin told a conference of builders and town planners in London that the planning system was a good one but he believed that too much time was being spent on dealing with trivial matters when matters of principle should be considered. He was, therefore, proposing a number of possible changes to the General Development Order … The proposals. … were designed to give a greater freedom without destroying the planning framework".
  That is what we are about at this time.
  In another place in 1977., Baroness Birk said that the previous Administration's proposals would leave more time for the careful and efficient control of the proposals that were of greater significance to the community and would reduce the frustration felt by people wishing to extend their own houses who had previously found themselves caught up in the planning system. She also said that the proposals would be of benefit to small firms proposing to extend their premises. I wholeheartedly agree with her.
  We believe that it is important, where possible, to reduce the level of bureaucracy and the level of public

  169
  expenditure and to free from control a large portion of those whose planning applications are approved in full measure. About 93 per cent. of planning applications of this sort already receive approval. We are not dealing with a vast range of planning applications that cause local authorities grave disagreement when considering them.
  Mr. Graham: I am worried about a phrase that the Minister used earlier when he suggested that £10 million was about the sum that the Government sought to save. They are starting with the premise of seeking to save £10 million. In order to save that, we have to agree to these relaxations. There was nothing wrong with a previous Government or a previous Minister having an aspiration but, having consulted those who had to carry it out, reaching the conclusion either that the time was not right or that the extent of relaxation was too much. Will the Minister say what weight of opinion he has received contrary to that which I have received from the profession and from councillors not in favour of the relaxations listed in the orders?
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a major difference between our two parties about what to put at the top of the list. We tend to put the ultimate customer at the top of our list—the person who has to decide whether he wishes to extend his property. We have to decide whether the application needs to be considered and whether the planning application procedure should apply to him. We have a different view from that of the Opposition about public expenditure. We have a different view also about the principle of what planning should do. Planning should deal in the round with the environment in which individuals may be free as far as possible to pursue their own legitimate aspirations. These are major differences that I do not think we can reconcile in this short debate.
  More than half a million planning applications are made every year, and the planning system is under strain. About half of the applications relate solely to small household developments. Many of the applications are approved. About 93 per cent. of all householder planning applications in England during 1979–80 were granted. It is clear that not all the applications are necessary. It is equally clear that at present the more trivial of the applications are serving only to clog the planning machine and are imposing an unjustifiable burden on local authority resources. This is happening at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers.
  From the house or factory owner's point of view, the retention of unnecessary controls is an infuriating and time-wasting obstruction. It will become even more indefensible when the new system of charging fees for planning applications comes into operation on 1 April. There will then be all the more reason for trying to ensure that applications have to be made only when there is some genuine planning requirement to be met.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Apart from one man's petty bureaucracy being another man's protection, is not the hon. Gentleman's logic at fault when he argues that 93 per cent. of all household planning applications made in 1979–80 were granted? Is it not clear that at present applications are made with some care and with some concern for neighbours? That is why they are accepted. If there is a relaxation of the controls, it does not
  170
  follow that the same degree of care will be taken. The chance of an authority rejecting an application will not be present to the same degree.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. We believe that the changes that we propose and the safeguards that we have built into the orders will deal with the applications that cause difficulty. There are constraints implied in the orders that we are putting before the House.
  It will be appropriate for me to make some firm observations on the main provisions of these measures. First, the amount by which a householder may enlarge his house without needing to make a planning application is increased from the present limit of 50 cubic metres, or 10 per cent. of its cubic size if greater, to 70 cubic metres or 15 per cent.
  Secondly, private garages will in future be treated as extensions of the dwelling-house for the purposes of the order only if they are built within five metres of the house. Otherwise, they will be treated in the same way as other outbuildings, such as garden sheds, and will not, therefore, count towards the permitted allowance for house extensions.
  Thirdly, the limit for permitted extensions to industrial buildings is raised from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. This is subject to a maximum increase in floor area of 750 square metres instead of 500 square metres as at present.
  All these measures were proposed in the previous Administration's 1977 amendment order. However, in that measure a blanket relaxation was proposed which took no account of the special needs of certain areas. We are very conscious, however, that an extension which was quite unexceptionable in itself could, in certain very sensitive areas, have an impact out of all proportion to its size. We have, therefore, taken the view that it would not be justified to relax controls in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas. The purpose of the special development order currently before the House is to exclude all such existing areas from these relaxations.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister has mentioned industrial relaxation. Where will the additional space come from? Clearly, space for an industrial site will be precious. I am worried about small factories that are sited within residential areas. This is an aspect to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) referred. Such a factory may have a tiny car park. When the owners are seeking the opportunity to expand, they may decide that the 20 per cent. provision makes it worth while, whereas it would not have been worth while with the 10 per cent. provision. Certain landscaping conditions could have applied. What steps has the Department in mind to ensure that existing protections for local residents will not be diminished to encourage industrial users?
  Mr. Shaw: We are giving industry no new rights. We are merely extending an existing right. It cannot be argued that a new problem is being created. It is our experience that there are relatively few instances in which industrial extensions give rise to the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Although the occasional difficult case will still occur, the various safeguards will, in general, prove adequate to guard against any widespread or serious problem.

  171
  In addition, there is a new safeguard withdrawing permission for any extension within 5 metres of the site boundary. In some cases, that will represent a tightening rather than a relaxation of control.
  The other main item in the order is a new flexibility of use for small industrial and warehousing premises. That has the twin aims of giving small firms an extra element of freedom, and, as a result of that freedom, of encouraging developers to provide new premises for small firms.
  All those proposals were the subject of consultation last year. We had many replies, including several from right hon. and hon. Members, giving a great deal of helpful and constructive comment. We considered the views expressed very carefully and took them fully into account in reaching our decisions. As a result, we made a number of substantial modifications in order to minimise the risk of unsuitable or unneighbourly development. That point was raised by a number of my hon. Friends.
  The main modifications that we have made will exempt terraced houses from the relaxation, limit the amount of garden that can be built on, control attempts to incorporate garages into overlarge extensions and control two-storey extensions close to a neighbour's boundary. Industrial extensions will also be brought under control when they are close to the boundary
  Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm a point regarding warehouses which is of concern to some of us? If a use is changed from a factory into a warehouse of up to the permitted 235 square metres, any extension in the size of the warehouse beyond that will require planning permission. The local authority could refuse that planning permission if it so wished, for otherwise the warehouse could grow and grow.
  Mr. Shaw: That would be the position. However, as my hon. Friend will recognise, the establishment of the warehouse for its original purpose would constitute the most relevant fact in determining any further application that might be sought to be made for an increase in size.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am interested in mansion blocks. It has been the practice to add a complete extra floor to mansion blocks on the ground that that was within the percentage of permitted additional development. There is a risk that that manoeuvre might be made easier under these orders.
  Mr. Shaw: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question about mansion blocks and extensions now, but I shall write to him.
  We cannot foretell the precise effect of those changes, but we estimate that they will take out of the planning system some 50,000 applications a year, or perhaps more. That represents a significant gain in freedom to the individual citizen, a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy and a saving in public expenditure. That is why I invite the House to support these measures.
  Mr. Graham: Will the Minister reply to the point I made about the different categories of conservation areas that will result—those which existed before 1 April and those which will exist after 1 April? Is it not correct to say that those in existence before 1 April will be restricted to permitted development of 10 per cent. and that those in
  172
  existence after 1 April will be able to have 15 per cent.? Will the Minister comment on the difference in category and the aggravations which that can cause?
  Mr. Shaw: My charity knows no ends. Where there is a conservation area or an area of outstanding natural beauty in the process of being created, there would be a problem about 1 April, which is the date when the regulations will come into force. My right hon. Friend has powers to deal with that matter. Should there be the subsequent establishment of an area of conservation or outstanding natural beauty, that would be taken into account in dealing with the matter.
  The hon. Member suggested that two areas of planning would be involved—two conservation areas where double standards might apply. It is a question not of creating two nations or employing double standards but of moulding the framework to meet the special needs of a particular area. That is the hallmark of good planning.
  Question put and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 245), dated 19 February 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be annulled—[Mr. Graham.]
  The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 100.
  Question accordingly negatived.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Third Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Question agreed to.

  Performing Right Society
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  12.51 am
  Mr. Les Huckfield: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on assuming your office.
  I am grateful for the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the need for investigation by the Department of Trade of the activities and operation of the Performing Right Society. In so far as I have an interest to declare, it is that I am the political secretary of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs, an organisation of some 130 Labour clubs which makes to me continuing complaints about the activities and operation of the PRS.
  Many Labour club secretaries would prefer not to pay a PRS levy or tariff at all. However, I do not wish tonight to raise the issue of principle. I wish to concentrate on the method of operation of the PRS, which is the chief complaint that the PRS attracts from Labour clubs and their committees and secretaries.
  I have no objection to secrets where vital national defence or commercial confidentiality is involved, but the PRS is different. Secrecy seems to operate there mainly for the benefit of senior management. The Department of
  174
  Trade has powers of investigation. London and County Securities, Pinnock Finance, the recent example of Norton Warburg Ltd. and the case of Lloyd's and Sasse, where financial journalists have complained of a lack of secrecy, are rather similar examples of where the Department has the powers and, many feel, ought to use them.
  We are dealing with a monopoly, formed in 1914, which Parliament has allowed to become a de facto, almost statutory, monopoly. If one is in the music business and wishes to receive royalty payments, it must be done through the PRS. If one uses music, one must make a payment to the PRS. Although the PRS is a de facto monopoly which Parliament has allowed to be created, the difficulty is that neither those who have to pay nor those who receive the money can find out what happens to it in between.
  We are talking not about a small business but about an organisation with a membership of 12,000, with an annual turnover of £40 million and involving £9 million of overseas royalties. It is a multinational business, transferring millions of pounds around the globe, without its members knowing what takes place. It has a massive headquarters in Berners Street, employing some 500 staff, and an overhead administration cost of some £5 million.
  Worse than that, it employs a small army of snoopers who prey on Labour and other clubs. They suddenly appear at the door demanding large sums of money in almost Dick Turpin fashion. It is high handed and it is arbitrary. When challenged, it very often cannot produce sufficient evidence. Labour clubs which I represent and other organisations would like to know what goes on and I venture to suggest that many of the members of the PRS would like to know what goes on as well. Many club secretaries find themselves being asked to do ridiculous amounts of secretarial work on behalf of the society and the burden is greatly resented.
  It is just as bad for the members of the Performing Right Society. They find it very difficult to carry out a detailed check on the sources of their payments. When they ask for additional information, they are sometimes told that supplying it could cost up to 80 per cent. of the sum to which they might ultimately be entitled. A member might be entitled, for example, to receive royalties of £10,000, but by the time the cost of investigation and administration had been borne this might mean that that person would receive only about £1,250. That is just one example. It has now reached the stage where many members are afraid even to ask for information in case their revenue from the PRS suffers the following year.
  Until five years ago, only 12 per cent. of the membership had a vote at all. Worse than that, only the governing council of the Performing Right Society had the lists of those entitled to vote. Little wonder was it, then, that every one who stood for election to the governing council of the PRS in the past 60 years was elected. It is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Indeed, I venture to suggest that compared with the Performing Right Society a papal conclave looks like a Longbridge mass meeting.
  When a PRS member complained that this was undemocratic and suggested that the disfranchisement of 88 per cent. of the membership might be illegal, Michael Freegard, the general manager, who I believe now titles himself the chief executive, said in a suit that he was being accused of
  "acting improperly, dishonestly and secretively in the discharge of his responsibilities".

  175
  Those are his words and they reflect a very serious accusation not just against him but against the conduct of the society as well. Quite remarkably, however, although that is a very serious accusation and those are his words, he withdrew the suit without apology and was even ordered to pay the detractor's costs. For his pains in doing that, he was awarded a 50 per cent. increase in his salary which is now some £30,000 per year.
  Little wonder was it that someone quipped to me over the telephone this afternoon that if anyone was wondering what had happened to "The Godfather Part III", perhaps this is it. Those are not my words. They are the sentiments of someone who deplores the activities of the Performing Right Society, as do many others. Indeed, as a result of that, some 25 hon. Members signed a letter to The Guardian deploring the secrecy in the organisation. But, I repeat, this is an organisation to which the Labour clubs and others that I represent have to pay royalties. It is a monopoly that Parliament has allowed to develop.
  Following a further initative and a further resort to legal action, the appellate court found that the principal excuse that that governing council was using—that it did not have the authority to publish the names and the voting lists—was both false and untrue. The appellate court in fact said that at all times the governing council had an absolute right to make the voting lists available. Little wonder was it that at the 1978 annual general meeting there was a 77 per cent. majority for the publication of the lists. The difficulty was that, having taken the legal action which ultimately brought that about, a portion of the costs was assessed against the PRS member who brought the suit.
  In 1977, the voting lists were extended to include 54 per cent. of the membership—hardly a great advance in democracy, although I suppose one must consider that to be the case with the PRS. The difficulty is that the members now have either one, 10 or 20 votes. Therefore, about 12,000 members have 21,000 votes. But the problem is that 400 members have 20 votes each, giving them 8,000 votes—enough to exert control over the society. There are proxy votes as well, which means that publishers have an undue influence, and still only the council members themselves know who has 20 votes.
  That means that, despite the legal actions which have taken place, despite the minuscule extensions in democracy which have been brought about, the control still rests in hands of very few people—very big music publishers but very few people—and we are talking about certain key companies in the music business.
  I also refer to the unknown size and the unknown contents of the alleged "black box", for within the Performing Right Society there exists a sum of money known as a black box. No one knows the sums, no one knows where it comes from, and no one knows where it might be destined to go. It is administered, it seems to be collected and it seems to accrue on entirely internal and unaccountable rules.
  Why is there the need to preserve all this security and secrecy in an organisation which Parliament has allowed to become a monopoly, to which the clubs that I represent have to pay royalties if they want to perform music, and to which members of the music profession have to apply if they wish to receive royalty payments?
  176
  Why, for example, has the Performing Right Society expended as much as £100,000 and over £200,000 of members' money in fighting off these reforms? Why are there these great endeavours to preserve all this secrecy? Could it be, for example, that someone inquiring into the activities of the PRS might get round to finding out about some of the interest-free loans which members of the staff have received? I accept that these have now been made interest-bearing loans. But when only 19 per cent. of the loans have been made to about 500 employees—these are figures gleaned from the annual reports—and when 81 per cent. of the loans have been made to seven members of the executive staff, with 50 per cent. of the loans to the ultimate benefit of the general manager and the legal adviser, including, I understand, a £56,000 loan for a house mortgage, is this perhaps the reason for the great endeavour on the part of the PRS to preserve security and secrecy?
  It cannot be that the society wants to preserve secrecy against its competitors; it is not that kind of organisation. It cannot be that the society wants to preserve secrecy because it fears that it will lose the market. It does not have any other market competitor; it has the market to itself. One has to pay the tariff to it and one can only receive one's royalties through it. A great many people who either have to pay to or receive money from the PRS wonder about these questions daily, weekly and annually—even to the extent of taking their concern to court. So why is there this great urgency and need to preserve secrecy?
  The Minister may say that the amendments being proposed to the Companies (No. 2) Bill in another place will be sufficient, but the amendment to section 110 of the Companies Act—indeed, it has come to be called "the PRS amendment"—certainly will not be sufficient for the organisation that I represent, for, although it will enable the publication of voting lists and names and further details, that will only enable us to see who has the vote at present. It certainly will not enable us to inquire into matters which may have transpired in the past. So I am afraid that I shall find it difficult to accept it if the Minister simply says that the Government intend to amend the Companies (No. 2) Bill.
  I do not seek a full-blown inquiry under sections 164 and 165 of the 1948 Act. The Minister has all the powers that he needs in section 109 of the Companies Act 1967. He will know that that is often variously referred to in the trade as the "suspicion clause" or the "suspicion section". When the Secretary of State has certain information relayed to him, he can ask for documents to be produced.
  I should like to quote from the tribunal report in the 1971 case of Vehicle and General Insurance. It held that the Minister concerned was negligent on the ground that it was his
  "responsibility at all times after the 1967 Act came into force to ensure that suspicions which attached to the Company were resolved one way or another. His position in the Department … and his authority to use the extensive powers in the 1967 Act, gave him the necessary weapons to fulfil his responsibility".
  I suggest that those sentiments apply in this case.
  Even at this late hour, I submit that the Secretary of State has the necessary powers. I hope that he will initiate an inquiry according to the powers at his disposal in the 1967 Act. I do not want to minimise the concern. This issue involves not only Labour clubs but all sorts of organisations that use music in one way or another. There is a great deal of concern on their part and an equal amount

  177
  of concern on the part of members of the Performing Right Society. This issue will not go away. I hope that the Government will show their concern in the appropriate manner tonight.
  1.11 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): In the time available, I shall reply by explaining how the system works. I expect in part to answer the criticisms of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and to show how the working of the system has been and will be improved by the enactment of the Companies Bill.
  The right to authorise the public performance and broadcasting of his works is one of the most valuable given by copyright law to a composer of music. No one can reasonably deny that composers are entitled to fair payment when their musical works are enjoyed by the public. But public performances take place at all times and in diverse locations and it is impossible for a composer as an individual to police his right. Equally impossible is the public's task of obtaining the necessary permission from the author of each piece of music they want to perform. The Performing Right Society Ltd. provides the solution to both these problems.
  Since the Performing Right Society was established more than 60 years ago—bringing together British composers and music publishers and collectively exercising their right to authorise public performance—it has enjoyed world-wide recognition for efficiency and has earned a sound reputation. Not only does it enable composers to obtain an important part of their earnings but it gives music users convenient access to virtually the whole musical repertoire by means of a single simple licence.
  A licence scheme has been drawn up for each different class of establishment where music is performed in public, ranging from the BBC—which is a very large music user—to village halls where music may be played only occasionally. Generally, the terms of the licence will be negotiated with the body representing the particular class of music user. In the event of a dispute over terms, reference can be made to the independent Performing Right Tribunal, which has power to revise tariffs which it considers unreasonable.
  The Performing Right Society, exercising as it does a very large number of composers' rights, is in a quasi-monopoly position. Having regard to the purposes that I have described, it could not be otherwise. In order to avoid abuse of this power, the Performing Right Tribunal was set up by Parliament by virtue of part IV of the Copyright Act 1956. Anyone who is refused a licence by the Performing Right Society or who is not satisfied with the appropriate tariff may make reference to the tribunal. Its fee is kept deliberately low in order not to deter the little man who thinks that his case should be independently reviewed. In considering cases referred to it, the tribunal has to fix the terms at the level it considers reasonable in all the circumstances. The chairman of the tribunal is appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to clubs. Most working mens' clubs, by which I mean the usual kind of social or members' clubs, are found in large numbers in urban and rural parts of the country. Their membership includes people from all occupations and walks of life. Therefore, I shall subsequently refer to them as social clubs. Most of
  178
  these clubs will provide music for the enjoyment of their members. They may provide live musical entertainment, background music or performances by means of radio or television sets. The Performing Right Society's licensing scheme provides for all these possibilities and takes into account the number of persons present and the value of the music to the activity.
  For example, music for dancing commands a higher fee than background music or music incidental to the use of a television set. Most club management committees recognise that music is a commodity to be paid for like any other. The annual licence fees charged by the society represent a relatively modest sum when related to an hour's entertainment per member present.
  The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to Labour clubs, although he went on to explain the background of his complaint. The Performing Right Society has a tariff for the performance of music in clubs, details of which are published each year and full details of which can be seen in the 1980 yearbook. The publication of those details contradicts one of the hon. Gentleman's allegations of secrecy.
  The tariff offers concessionary rates to various club associations, and that has been taken up by the Club and Institute Union, the Association of Conservative Clubs, the National Union of Liberal Clubs, the Royal British Legion, and others. But the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs has declined. I am not sure whether that has been recent under the hon. Gentleman's influence or whether it occurred in earlier years, although I would have thought that in earlier years it would fit in with this pattern. Disputes over tariffs can be referred to the Performing Right Tribunal, but there has been no reference in this instance.
  The exercise of copyright is a private matter between the copyright owners—in this case the Performing Right Society—and those who want to put on public performances of music. There is no provision for Government intervention. If it is dissatisfied, the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs may bring the matter before the Performing Right Tribunal, which is empowered to fix tariffs at a reasonable level. There is no question of political bias of any kind with regard to any of these arrangements.
  The PRS licence schemes include provision for calculating the charge. In the case of clubs, performances are broken down into live performances, recorded music, and background music. It is up to the music user to make sure that his use of music is correctly assessed by the PRS in accordance with the published tariff.
  I want to refer to the hon. Gentleman's allegations of secrecy, because there appears to me to be no secrecy about the public operation of the society. It publishes full information, including a statement of accounts, in its yearbook, which is readily available. That can be seen. It is spelt out in the accounts. It shows the revenue and how it is made up, as well as United Kingdom revenue and that which comes from overseas. It deals with the administrative costs, the total for distribution and the manner in which it is distributed.
  Having rejected another of the hon. Gentleman's allegations about unjustified secrecy, I turn to the subject of the companies limited by guarantee and to the disclosure of voting rights of members. I acknowledge that the provisions of clause 54 of the Companies (No. 2) Bill, as introduced in another place, would not for technical

  179
  reasons require companies limited by guarantee, such as the Performing Right Society, to disclose the voting rights of their members. The hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. However, a good deal of work has been done on this subject in recent months, and this deficiency is to be corrected. The Government plan to have amendments tabled to achieve this correction by the time the Bill comes to this House.
  Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should study carefully these amended provisions as I believe that they will meet the substance of his points with regard to disclosure of voting rights. In that respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman had grounds for complaining. The provisions to be introduced will require disclosure of voting rights. I believe that that will deal substantially with the main point that the hon. Gentleman raised in this respect.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to loans or quasi-loans to officers. I emphasise that the Companies Act 1980 dealt with this matter. There is now an obligation to disclose any such transactions of this kind.
  I should like to refer quickly to the Whitford committee, which reported in 1977 having considered the collective exercise of a composer's performing right and acknowledged that the society had monopolistic control. The committee considered, however, that it was clearly an advantage to promoters of musical entertainments to be able to obtain from one source a licence to perform all the music they needed. The committee reported that there was little criticism, on the evidence that it received, of either the powers or the operation of the tribunal.
  Many views and comments have been received since the committee reported, and they are under consideration. A Green Paper setting out the Government's views is expected to be published within the next few months, and that will relate to the whole of copyright.
  Mr. Les Huckfield: The Minister is trying to be very helpful. However, is he saying that, in view of the
  180
  evidence which I have submitted this evening, and in view of other evidence which I could send to him, he does not think that there are any grounds for any kind of investigation under section 109 of the Companies Act 1967? I grant that he is putting before the House powers which the Government are preparing to take, but that still does not cover the great majority of the points that I have made tonight.
  Mr. Eyre: I thought that the hon. Gentleman gave an over-critical account of the general public function of the society. I have tried to explain the general background and the benefit, not only to music producers but also to the general public, which comes out of that system. I have also gone further, though, with regard to the internal affairs of the society. I have tried to explain, first, the ways in which the hon. Gentleman's allegations of secrecy about the accounts and so on are not justified and how the information is available, but, secondly, I have tried to explain the way in which, with the changes under company law—the Bill which is now before Parliament—there will be a change and an improvement in the publication of voting rights. I believe that that is an important matter within guarantee societies of this category. The changes will relate to all the guarantee societies.
  Mr. Huckfield: If I send the Minister information, will he at least examine it to see whether an investigation under section 109 of the 1967 Act is warranted?
  Mr. Eyre: For the reasons that I have explained. at this stage I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully justified his request for an investigation. Considerable expense is involved in such investigations. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to send me extra information, I shall consider it, but I ask him to pause and to review the matters that I have put before the House tonight, because I believe that he will find that the substance of his main criticisms will be met.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past One o' clock.

DEFENCE
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS)
TRADE
  Non-Life Insurance Services
  Non-Life Insurance Services
  Textile and Clothing Industries (Outward Processed Trade)
  Textile and Clothing Industries (Outward Processed Trade)
  Under-Secretary of State (Speech)
  Under-Secretary of State (Speech)
  Anti-dumping (Departmental Staff)
  Anti-dumping (Departmental Staff)
  Bankruptcies and Insolvencies
  Bankruptcies and Insolvencies
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Competition Act 1980
  Competition Act 1980
  Textile and Clothing (Imports)
  Textile and Clothing (Imports)
  Refusal to Supply
  Refusal to Supply
  Statutory Advertising Control
  Statutory Advertising Control
  Air Traffic Control (West Drayton)
  Air Traffic Control (West Drayton)
  Subsidiary Companies (Debt Liability)
  Subsidiary Companies (Debt Liability)
  "The Observer"
  "The Observer"
  Small Firms (Exports)
  Small Firms (Exports)
  Textile and Clothing Industries (Outward Processed Trade)
  Textile and Clothing Industries (Outward Processed Trade)
  Origin Marking
  Origin Marking
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Seamen (Industrial Action)
  Seamen (Industrial Action)
  United States of America (Book Imports)
  United States of America (Book Imports)
  Heathrow (Security)
  Heathrow (Security)
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry
  Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry
  "Bristol Evening Post" and "Western Daily Press"
  "Bristol Evening Post" and "Western Daily Press"
  Piano Imports
  Piano Imports
  Computers
  Computers
  Oil Pollution (Norfolk Coast)
  Oil Pollution (Norfolk Coast)
  Tourist Development
  Tourist Development
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Insurance Contract Law
  Insurance Contract Law
  Premium Merchandising
  Premium Merchandising
  Seafarers (Safety)
  Seafarers (Safety)
  Norton Warburg
  Norton Warburg
  Advertising
  Advertising
  Merchant Vessels (Registration)
  Merchant Vessels (Registration)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Regina v. Stanislaus Pieck
  Regina v. Stanislaus Pieck
PRIME MINISTER
  Budget
  Budget
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Grenada
  Grenada
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  United Nations Aid Agencies
  United Nations Aid Agencies
SCOTLAND
  Children's Panels (Social Background)
  Children's Panels (Social Background)
  Primary and Secondary School Rolls
  Primary and Secondary School Rolls
  Employment
  Employment
  Torness (Contracts)
  Torness (Contracts)
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authority Manpower
  Gaelic-speaking Areas
  Gaelic-speaking Areas
  Roads and Transport
  Roads and Transport
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
WALES
  Dust Disease Research Centre
  Dust Disease Research Centre
  Improvement for Sale Scheme
  Improvement for Sale Scheme
  Employment
  Employment
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  European Community Investment
  European Community Investment
  Colleges of Technology
  Colleges of Technology
INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Post Office and British Telecom (Purchasing Policy)
  Post Office and British Telecom (Purchasing Policy)
  Powers of Entry
  Powers of Entry
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Phoenix II
  Phoenix II
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Departmental Officials (Government Cars)
  Departmental Officials (Government Cars)
  Profit Sharing Schemes
  Profit Sharing Schemes
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Tax and Price Index
  Tax and Price Index
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inland Revenue (Confidential Information)
  Inland Revenue (Confidential Information)
  Public Expenditure (Transfer Payments)
  Public Expenditure (Transfer Payments)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Government Remuneration
  Government Remuneration
  National Insurance Surcharge
  National Insurance Surcharge
EMPLOYMENT
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Workington
  Workington
  Cumbria
  Cumbria
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Working Population
  Working Population
  Holiday Entitlement and Working Life
  Holiday Entitlement and Working Life
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Unemployed Graduates
  Unemployed Graduates
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Non-Nuclear-Weapon States
  Non-Nuclear-Weapon States
  International Seabed Authority
  International Seabed Authority
  Negative Security Assurance
  Negative Security Assurance
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Israel (Borders)
  Israel (Borders)
  Argentina
  Argentina
  North Atlantic Assembly
  North Atlantic Assembly
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers' Superannuation Fund
  Teachers' Superannuation Fund
  Teachers' Pensions (Scott Committee Report)
  Teachers' Pensions (Scott Committee Report)
  Multi-Ethnic Education
  Multi-Ethnic Education
  Association of Polytechnic Teachers
  Association of Polytechnic Teachers
  Examinations (Deposit)
  Examinations (Deposit)
  Scholarships
  Scholarships
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foreign-owned Fishing Vessels
  Foreign-owned Fishing Vessels
  European Community (Agricultural Investment)
  European Community (Agricultural Investment)
  Costs and Prices
  Costs and Prices
  Marginal Land Survey (Warwickshire)
  Marginal Land Survey (Warwickshire)
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  Butter
  Butter
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Bass (Minimum Size)
  Bass (Minimum Size)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Foreign Nationals
  Foreign Nationals
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  National Health Service (Courier Services)
  National Health Service (Courier Services)
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Fund-raising
  Fund-raising
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Medical Appeal Tribunals (Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis)
  Medical Appeal Tribunals (Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis)
  Invaidity Benefit
  Invaidity Benefit
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Quixalin
  Quixalin
  Mental Patients (Suicide)
  Mental Patients (Suicide)
TRANSPORT
  Road Fund Licence
  Road Fund Licence
  Motoring Service Areas (Parking)
  Motoring Service Areas (Parking)
  Vehicle Defects (Code of Practice)
  Vehicle Defects (Code of Practice)
  Roads and Transport
  Roads and Transport
  Motorways (Winter Maintenance)
  Motorways (Winter Maintenance)
  Land Sales (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Land Sales (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  M62
  M62
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
ENVIRONMENT
  Departmental Savings
  Departmental Savings
  Management Information system
  Management Information system
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Planning Consents (Appeals)
  Planning Consents (Appeals)
  Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Birmingham and Coventry Area (Planning)
  Birmingham and Coventry Area (Planning)
  ater Charges
  ater Charges
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Historic Country Houses
  Historic Country Houses
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Housing Revenue Account
  Housing Revenue Account
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  56, Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch
  56, Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch

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

Nuclear Test Ban: Working Group
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 on what grounds the United Kingdom representative at the Committee on Disarmament at Geneva, supported by the representative of the United States of America, opposed the proposal of the majority committee of 21 of unaligned nations that a working group should be established to facilitate the conclusion of a treaty prohibiting underground tests of nuclear weapons.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we recognise the widespread international interest in the test ban negotiations. But we do not at present believe that a working group on this subject in the Committee on Disarmament would be likely to advance the prospects for a treaty, until the negotiating nuclear weapon states have reached a greater measure of agreement on an issue which is vital to their security.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether a working party would not actually offer aid to the tripartite discussions which are going on, and be complementary to those discussions and service those discussions? Is the Minister aware that the other three nuclear powers—other than America and Britain—have all accepted this proposal? Is he aware that at Geneva the Soviet Union said that it had no objections, and it is part of the tripartite discussions? Is he aware that France indicated that it would accept the proposal, although it would not participate, owing to the general policy? Has he seen the statement from China last week accepting the proposal? Three out of five of the nuclear powers have accepted it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand that the Russians would agree to a working group, provided that all the five nuclear weapon states participate. They do however agree that the confidentiality of the tripartite negotiations should be preserved. I do not have the noble Lord's advance notice of either the Chinese or the French reaction.

Cricketers: Visits to South Africa
2.37 p.m.
Lord Avebury: 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 measures they have taken to discourage cricketers from playing or coaching in South Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, no direct action has been taken concerning individual cricketers; leaving aside the matter of desirability it would be impracticable to try to do so. But the Cricket Council is fully acquainted with the terms of the Commonwealth Statement of 1977.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, but does not the Gleneagles Agreement require Commonwealth Governments to take every practicable step to discourage contact or competition by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa? While, of course, the Government have no legal power to stop cricketers from playing or coaching in South Africa, may I ask whether they ought not to issue statements calling on cricketers not to support apartheid in this way just as various Ministers, including the Prime Minister, called on individual athletes not to take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the fact is that our citizens are free to come and go as they please, without reference to Government. But, in any case, it is impracticable because there is no requirement for such individuals to notify the Government of their intentions to travel to South Africa or anywhere else come to that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I quite accept—and I said so—that our citizens are free to come and go as they please, may I ask why the Prime Minister considered it quite proper to say that British athletes have the same rights and the same responsibilities towards freedom and its maintenance as every citizen of the United Kingdom in respect of the visits by athletes to Moscow, when she does not feel inclined to say the same thing about cricketers who go and support apartheid by playing cricket in South Africa?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if she so wishes, the Prime Minister will make such statements as she thinks are appropriate in this matter, as indeed in any other matter.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, could it possibly be because South Africa is not engaged in invading a neutral country and because, indeed, South Africa provides far more freedom than ever Russia does?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister's earlier answer indicate that no Minister would dare utter a statement in disagreement with the Prime Minister?
Lord Bellwin: Not at all, my Lords; there have been such things said, not very frequently, but sometimes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister think—whether or not he is prepared to answer in this House—that Ministers including the Prime Minister had better have some better replies ready for President Shagari of Nigeria who arrives tomorrow and who, possibly, has orders worth £1,500 million per annum for British industry? Whether or not the Minister thinks that there are any moral considerations here, are there not certain practical ones that we should bear in mind?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords; any comment that I would make on that would not be helpful.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, would it be a good idea if Her Majesty's Government arranged a meeting between the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the professional cricketers so that they could inform him as to what their views are of his views?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sure that that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, himself would have to take up if he so wished.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am not a Minister yet!

Redundancy Payments and Social Security
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is economic that many persons have been spending their redundancy money in order to bring their capital below the £2,000 limit for eligibility for social security.
Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, how a person spends his money must be a matter of individual choice We have no evidence to support the view that people are deliberately spending their redundancy payments in order to qualify for supplementary benefit in the way my noble friend suggests, although many redundant workers no doubt take the opportunity which a redundancy award represents to purchase or replace consumer items. That is their right, if they so wish. In any event, most redundant workers will in fact be entitled to unemployment benefit and would not normally be entitled to supplementary benefit for the first six months or so. Where it is established that a person has deliberately disposed of assets for the purpose of getting supplementary benefit, there are provisions for the value of those assets to continue to be taken into account.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Has her attention been drawn to the fact that many people are spending this money rather freely? I entirely agree with her that it is for them to decide, but what advice are they given, either by industry when they leave the industry concerned
514
or by her department, as to what can be done so that the money is not spent totally unnecessarily, simply in order to bring it down to £2,000?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated last week in answer to a similar supplementary question on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, how people spend their capital is a matter for them. But if they want to claim supplementary benefit, they need to take account of the two provisions in the resource regulations, the interpretation of which is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities. The Department of Health and Social Security does not give advice on what to do with redundancy money, and I would have to write to my noble friend Lady Vickers on the question of what, in fact, individual firms might do.

Madagascar: Technical Co-operation
2.44 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is to be the technical co-operation allocation for Madagascar for the coming year; whether this will include the financing of Land-Rovers; to what other projects aid funds will be allocated; and whether, in assessing the extent of our help and encouragement, our historical links as well as political, commercial and cultural considerations will be borne very much in mind.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we expect the scale of technical co-operation to be similar to that available in the current financial year, which we estimate at something like £250,000. This would include provision for two experts working on agro-climatology and air crash search and rescue techniques, a specially fitted air-crash rescue Land-Rover and the training of Malagasy students in the United Kingdom. Further possibilities are being examined, bearing in mind all relevant considerations.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Some of the aid that he mentions was mentioned on a previous occasion. Will he not agree that bearing in mind the shortage of foreign exchange in Madagascar, increased bilateral aid tied to procurement would be of benefit to both countries? Furthermore, will he not agree that, as in the case in October-November 1979 of the acquisition of three Hawker Siddeley 748 aircraft by the Malagasy Government, the fact that Her Majesty's Government placed those orders would, in effect, assist a sales campaign for British Aerospace—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I am asking a question. Will my noble friend not agree that that would assist British Aerospace to achieve a larger sales campaign in the area for similar aircraft, with maintenance being carried out in Madagascar?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, our ability to respond to additional requests for assistance is limited by financial constraints affecting the whole aid programme. My noble friend mentioned that some of these are current, which is true, and a grant of £600,000 has been given from the aid and trade provision for the purchase of the aircraft that he mentioned, two of which have been delivered and one of which has still to be delivered. Of course, when current expenditure reflects trainees and personnel, that will be carried forward into the next year. As I said in my original Answer, we do not intend in any way to cut back on what we are already doing.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one further question, although I do not wish to delay the House. Is it not a fact that a few years ago a British delegation, sponsored by the ODM, went out and that one of the promises that this delegation made was that it would get in touch with the Commonwealth Development Corporation with a view to involving the CDC in the agricultural field? Will my noble friend not agree that the agricultural field represents 85 per cent. of that country's economy and therefore is of great importance?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we are indeed continuing to look at the agricultural picture. As my noble friend will be aware, the 20 boars and five gilts which have been provided since 1979 with the aim of trying to improve the quality of the Malagasy herd have helped. We understand that a proposal has been worked out by the Malagasy Government seeking our help for butter bean growing.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships is I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time.
It is proposed that the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill should be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately three-quarters of an hour, and that the Third Readings of the European Assembly Elections Bill and of the Trees (Replanting and Replacement) Bill should be taken during this adjournment.
It might also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available tomorrow evening as well, at the usual time.

House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Bill
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that, so far as I know, no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 34 [Orders requiring notification of agricultural operations on moor and heath in National Parks]:
[Amendment No. 173C not moved.]
Baroness White Baroness White moved Amendment No. 173D:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Designation of areas in which moorland conservation orders may be made
.—(1) The Ministers may, if satisfied that it is expedient to do so, by order designate the whole or part of a National Park as an area (a designated area) in relation to which the provisions of section (Moorland conservation orders) shall apply.
(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 173D, and I would suggest that we consider with it Amendments Nos. 173E, 173EA, and there are some consequential amendments, Nos. 173L, P, and R. The main substance of the argument I hope to put before your Lordships relates to consideration of the first of these amendments on the Marshalled List, No. 173D. This matter was discussed at Committee stage on an amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and was supported by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and others who are with us today. The amendment was then considered on, unfortunately, Friday the 13th, rather late in the afternoon, and was lost by the narrow margin of 14 votes. Speaking then, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said (at col. 461) that the proposals then put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley,
"fail to contain an important safeguard which we understand the previous Government intended to introduce at a subsequent stage of the Bill"—
which was lost at the time of the last election—namely, a provision that the national park committee before putting into effect the proposals for moorland conservation orders must offer a farmer a voluntary management agreement, and do this of course before any compulsory order came into consideration at all.
We have met the point made by the noble Earl, and this improvement in the amendment currently before your Lordships will be found on page 2 of the Marshalled List in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 173E, where it is set down in terms that before any moorland conservation order is made there should be an offer to the owner or occupier of the land of a voluntary management agreement. This is an important improvement and I hope will make what appeared to be rather complicated amendments fully acceptable to your Lordships' House.
I must say in fairness to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that he went on to suggest that even the addition of this, I think important, safeguard would not of itself necessarily satisfy Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, it is perhaps worth while emphasising what the real difference between us is, because, as we understand it, the Government view is that they will be satis

517
fied with compulsory moorland notification orders but that they do not wish to take to themselves any power at all at the end of the day to make certain that these orders have any effect. To those of us who have worked in national parks, not only in Exmoor but in all parts of the country, we find this unconvincing for reasons which I hope to make clear.
I do not wish to take too long on this matter because it was fairly fully debated on the previous occasion, on Friday the 13th, but we should put the matter into perspective. We had a somewhat similar argument on Clause 27, on the sites of scientific interest, when again the Government resisted any element of what they considered to be compulsion. But I would make it clear that of course we are discussing an entirely different problem in the clauses and amendments now before us. As we were constantly reminded during debates on sites of special scientific interest, there are a great many of them and they are all over the country. Even if one discounts those which are already in the ownership of the National Trust, or conservation bodies and so on, and said not to be at risk, if one adds to them the few—30, 40, 50, or whatever it might be—of those with special protection accepted by the Government, there would still be some 3,000 other sites of scientific interest.
But on the matter we are now discussing, the ploughing of moorland and heath in national parks and only in national parks, I should be surprised if within any early future the number would go beyond single figures. But, in any case, the numbers concerned of areas where such orders would have to be made by conservation orders would be very small indeed. Had we not the type of grant structure which was discussed under the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, last week and accepted by the House, for what used to be called hill farms but are now, in EEC nomenclature, called less favoured areas, we should not have this problem at all.
It arises out of the grant system because, otherwise, who in their senses would insist on ploughing up heather moorland if they did not have a financial incentive at the end of it? We would not have this problem. I do not wish to labour the point on this occasion but, as most noble Lords who have been following this debate appreciate, we are in many difficulties under this Bill simply because no Minister of Agriculture has yet been prepared to face the real consequences of the kind of grant system which is, in present circumstances, quite inappropriate to the sort of areas we are discussing in the national parks.
That is the background. The scale of the operation would inevitably be small because the numbers of areas in national parks and the number of persons concerned are not large for this particular purpose. The grant incentive is what causes the trouble—grant and prices; the whole economic system in these areas. But I would submit that there are two main reasons why the notification system by itself with no longstop of last resort is not satisfactory. One was touched upon by a number of noble Lords in the debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and that of course is the matter of equity between neighbours; between different farmers or landowners. If the majority of them are persuaded to play the game but you have
518
someone who refuses to do so, then, under the Bill as it now stands, you have no remedy. If you have a really awkward customer who sticks out, there is nothing under the Bill at present that you can do. This seems to us inequitable and likely, in certain circumstances, to lead to great difficulties and to be very unfair to those farmers and landowners who have agreed to co-operate in a voluntary system. I do not think that this element should be overlooked.
There have been quite exceptional circumstances on Exmoor. I do not propose to go into the whole Exmoor saga. Even there it has taken a long time with tremendous effort before Lord Porchester, during Lord Porchester's investigation, and after Lord Porchester. I would emphasise that, in spite of all this effort and all the emotion which has been generated on Exmoor, the position still remains—and this is the second reason why one needs a longstop—that the bargaining power of the authority which is endeavouring to obtain voluntary agreements (which is the policy of the Government, and to which I shall return in a moment) is bound to be impaired if, at the end of the day, they are completely impotent.
That is the position under the Bill and, although we have been told by a number of speakers that the area of land which has been ploughed up or otherwise damaged without the consent of the national parks authority has, since the Porchester investigation, been very small, and while that may be true, behind that stands the bargaining process; and that is exactly what it is. It is not that other land has not been ploughed up but that other land has not been ploughed up with objection because the NPA realised that it had to bargain; in other words, it had to compromise; in other words, it had to allow a certain area to be damaged, as we think in the context of a national park, to save the remainder.
It is in that bargaining situation that we must recognise, if we have any sense of reality at all, that if you are trying to bargain on a purely voluntary basis and at the end of the day you have no weapons left in your hand, if at the end of the 12 months the person concerned says, "I am sorry but I am not going ahead with this" and you have no remedy, then you are apt to compromise to avoid that situation and therefore you have to allow a good deal of sometimes very important landscape to be partly damaged for the sake of getting an ultimate bargain so you can save the rest. It is that situation which those of us supporting the amendment suggest is not satisfactory because we do not believe that the bargaining can be carried out if, at the end of the day, the NPA or Minister as the case may be has no further weapons in hand.
It has been said on innumerable occasions in discussing the Bill that we are all in favour of going to the uttermost on the voluntary basis, and there is no need for me to reiterate that; it has been said time and again. Recently the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said, I thought rather plaintively, that the Government liked voluntary agreements. One can only raise one's eyes to heaven and say, "Sancta simplicitas; of course they do". Who would not? We all prefer voluntary agreements, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I am haunted by 1968. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that he is probably now in the position I was in in 1968 as a relatively newly-fledged Minister of

519
State at the Welsh Office on the Countryside Bill of that year. I think the noble Earl is in the position that I was then; I believed what they told me. What happened then? We were assured by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that all would be well and we need have no apprehensions. We had the situation on Exmoor that finally had to be handled by Lord Porchester because things had got so bad.
I am well aware that many things have happened since Porchester and that the situation is better, but I do not believe it is realistic to proceed as the Government wish without having some ultimate longstop. We are prepared to have this kind of longstop to prevent ultimately the destruction of historic buildings, and the present Secretary of State for the Environment has made a few quite dramatic interventions in this field. If we are prepared to have an ultimate longstop in that sphere, surely it is illogical to refuse to have a comparable longstop, a last resort power, for ex-ceptionally valuable historic landscapes. What is the difference in principle between the two? I am not an archaeologist, but I know that for some people the remarkable richness of bronze age and other archaeological remains and some of our hitherto undisturbed moorland, now possibly to be ploughed up, are as exciting as a Palladian building is to some of the rest of us.
The final argument adduced by the noble Earl, Lord Avon—Lord Avon's longstop, if I may so call it—was that if the worst really did come to the worst, the Government of the day, if they recognised that the purely voluntary system had failed, could legislate, and he said that it would take only three or four clauses in a short Bill. How often have we heard that phrase both here and in the other place from people who had not the slightest possibility of getting their legislation through? Admittedly Governments are in a stronger position than a private Member. Nevertheless, one can see perfectly well that somebody who was determined to resist could tag along until near the end of the 12 months and then, with a good legal adviser experienced in parliamentary matters, could say when the final crunch came, "No, I am not going to agree with you after all". That could be said just before the Summer Recess, when the legislative timetable was particularly full; and what would happen then?
To my mind this is either a bit of innocence or hypocrisy, I am not sure which, because, if one is prepared, as the noble Earl himself said, to legislate for this, then what is to prevent the Government putting a provision in the Bill now but which could not be activated except by the consent of the then Secretary of State and if necessary by the Ministers who are referred to a number of times in the Bill, and which would bring in the Minister of Agriculture and the appropriate Welsh Minister as the case might be? In other words, it would not just be routine.
If the matter were being taken seriously, something would be put in the Bill now and the noble Earl would not be playing, as it were, with the House by saying, "If it were to go wrong we could have a nice little Bill with three or four clauses which could be rushed through". That sort of thing can be done with constitutional matters affecting, say, Zimbabwe, but it
520
cannot be done if a moorland is about to be ploughed up. I have been long enough at both ends of Parliament to know that that sort of thing is not on. I do not feel that the matter has been seriously enough considered, and I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that I thought it was a rather flippant suggestion on his part.
I still believe that money is the root of all evil and that if it were not on the one hand for the grants and on the other for the problems of compensation in these situations, we should not have this difficulty over moorland conservation orders. In this context, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. He mentioned that one of the major difficulties, or sticking points, encountered in discussions with farmers on Exmoor—I image it would apply in other national park areas if the situation arose; the North York moors is an obvious park where this situation has arisen and could arise again, and I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned Northumberland, too—had been that by voluntary agreement one could obtain annual payments, whereas the proposition in respect of a compulsory agreement (the buying out of a place) would be that one would have a once-for-all sum.
Although a lay person in this matter, I should like to know why, if one can get a voluntary management agreement and provide in that for annual sums, there should be any reason why a similar arrangement cannot be made with a compulsory management agreement. Of course, one would resort to that only if all attempts at the voluntary management agreement had failed. I would hope to be told that that point has been very thoroughly considered and that there is some insuperable difficulty, of which I at least am not aware.
I do not wish to weary the House further, but to many of us this is a very important matter indeed. We do not believe that the Government have faced the real difficulties with the kind of resolution and courage we had hoped for, not least following the words uttered by the present Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall not quote them to your Lordships since you should now know them by heart. The Secretary of State for the Environment, in June 1979—in the first flush of enthusiasm upon his appointment to office—gave us every expectation that the kind of situation that we are discussing in the amendment would be met with determination and courage. It is that expectation that we are asking the present Government to fulfil. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, in these debates we have spoken always about Exmoor, and the nation was horrified when it was learnt from the Porchester Report, that in the 29 years up to 1936 12,000 acres of moorland were lost. But I have the recent figures from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England; the noble Baroness who has just spoken is the chairman for the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales. The CPRE has given me the latest figures from the Countryside Commission, and I must confess that I did not realise that the problem regarding Exmoor, bad as it is, is nothing compared with the problem of the North Yorkshire moors. The national

521
park authority for that area published figures in 1980. Whereas the loss on Exmoor over 29 years was 12,000 acres, in Yorkshire in the 25 years to 1975 there had been a loss not of 12,000 acres, but of 37,000 acres. Since 1975 there has been a further loss of 4,000 acres on the North Yorkshire moors, compared with 650 acres on Exmoor. So this is a very serious problem, which is much more widespread than I had realised.
In a previous amendment, on behalf of all the conservation bodies that CoEnCo represents, I declared our lack of faith in voluntary agreements as a permanent protection for land which should be preserved for future generations, unless—as the noble Baroness said—there are also powers to enforce the protection required. Your Lordships disagreed with that point of view by a margin of only 109 votes to 100 votes; so we were very nearly there. This is the case here. There is to be an offer of a voluntary agreement before a moorland conservation order is made. That is right and fair; that is how it should be. The amendment reproduces what would have been the position had your Lordships accepted our amendment on SSSIs, which was rejected by such a narrow majority. We now have another opportunity to deal with this matter, which is far more serious than I had thought. I hope that your Lordships will take the opportunity.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I disagree with the amendment as strongly as I disagreed with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley at the Committee stage. My disagreement is not really surprising, since, as the noble Baroness said, the wording now is exactly the same, except for the four lines which, as she explained, add the condition that a farmer must have been offered and have refused an agreement before a moorland conservation order can be applied. For reasons which I shall explain a little later on, I cannot, I fear, help feeling that this modest addition is designed to make the House feel that there has been added something of some substance that will alter the sense of the amendment. But farmers will perceive not one ha'porth of difference—and they would be right, because the result does not differ in any way. So we are, I repeat, debating the same amendment as last time, and we shall, I fear, have to go over some of the same ground again.
I expect that your Lordships are already aware—this point was mentioned last time—of the enormous amount of work that has been going on on Exmoor. in particular in the last few years, in creating the framework for a system of voluntary notification, voluntary delay and voluntary agreements. Your Lordships will also know that there is about to be published—it has not previously existed—a sophisticated and reliable system of assessing compensation, where a farmer agrees to deny himself the financial benefit of increasing his acreage of inbye at the expense of his heathland. The system is based on annual payments for loss of profits, and it has been worked out by the University of Exeter, the landowners, the farmers, and the Exmoor National Park Committee.
What does the amendment say about compensation? The new, small addition says nothing at all, and so inevitably we come back to the moorland conservation method. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has
522
made references to the possibility of a difficult method of payment, but there is nothing here about that. What is included is the moorland conservation method only, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is totally different from the annual loss of profits basis, which I have briefly described—
Baroness White: My Lords, since the noble Earl is obviously an expert on this subject, perhaps he can answer the question that I put to the noble Earl, Lord Avon. Is there any reason why that method of payment should not be used where there is a compulsory, rather than a voluntary, management agreement?
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I do not wish to be thought to be dodging questions, but I really do feel that that is something that my noble friend Lord Avon would himself wish to deal with. That is another way of saying that I know my place.
The moorland conservation method is spelt out in the amendment. It provides for a one-off payment based on the familiar "before and after" method of land valuation. It relies upon an opinion—albeit a professional one—of the reduction in land value. The land compensation code was designed to cover acquisition cases and it it totally unsuitable when applied to partial loss of rights. It is more complex, more arbitrary, and is far less favourable to the farmers.
The Exmoor basis, on the other hand, is tailor-made for dealing with compensation for loss of rights, rather than loss of ownership, and I do not blame the farming community for fearing that there would be irresistable pressure on the county valuer, in order to save money—which is his duty—to fall back whenever he could on the compulsory method of valuation, thus effectively destroying the whole of the voluntary system of compensation. Indeed, I agree with the farmers that that is exactly what would happen.
The noble Baroness referred to the question of bargaining and said that the local authority's power would be impaired. As I understood it, she said it was wrong to bargain as between equals; that the local authority must have the ultimate right. Well, that is her view; it is not my view of what bargaining means. Bargaining is a voluntary activity carried out between equals.
Baroness White: My Lords, with great respect, I would point out that the situation is not equal in the sense that in the last resort the farmer can hang out, whereas the local authority has no further power after the 12-months period has expired.
Earl De La Warr: Yes, my Lords, I take that point. On the other hand—
Baroness White: May I add that it is rather like the wolf and the lamb argument, my Lords?
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I take that point. On the other hand, one can look at it in exactly the opposite way and say that one must have the odds in favour of the local authority. So be it; this is a matter of opinion. We have discussed lost acreage before, and, not surprisingly, it has come up again, though I must

523
say that less reference has been made to it this time, particularly as far as Exmoor is concerned. But there is one figure that I think we ought to use, and in 1981 it is the only figure which in my opinion is valid. It is that during the last four years just 66 acres were ploughed or otherwise improved without the approval of the Exmoor National Park Committee; 25 acres were ploughed without notification; and 41 acres were limed and slagged following notification but without agreement. I find not too much indication there that the heathland and moorland of Exmoor are on the point of disappearing at the hands of the avaricious farmers. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the indication of that figure is exactly the opposite, and is that things are very stable and under good control already.
My noble friend Lord Craigton has said that we ought not to be debating Exmoor alone but that we should be looking at all moorlands in all national parks, and I think there is much to commend what he says. There are other noble Lords who are much more expert than I am about other national parks, and I know that my noble friend Lord Avon will wish to deal with this to some extent. But could not all the things that I have said about Exmoor and the voluntary approach apply on a wider front? Is not Exmoor a first-class example of what can happen on a voluntary basis in any national park? It is what is going on in the case of Exmoor that encourages me to believe, and to believe very deeply, that the voluntary method is the right one wherever it may be. For make no mistake about this, my Lords: once you insist on an ultimate power, the voluntary spirit is killed, just as night follows day—and that is where we come to the heart of the matter. So keen is the noble Baroness and her noble friends to ensure that nobody, but nobody, gets away that she is prepared to risk the destruction of the whole, growing movement among farmers for voluntary conservation. She is prepared to nip it, not in the bud but as it is coming into full flower.
It is for that reason that I so dislike the amendment, for when the chips are down it is not the law but the goodwill of the farmers upon whom we have to depend. If you lose that, my Lords, you lose it at your peril. So I believe that there is not a narrow divide between us on this clause. There is a great yawning abyss, and I beg your Lordships to bear this motivational aspect, along with other things, very much in mind before deciding which way to vote on this amendment, of which I for one so profoundly disapprove.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I was waiting in the hope that everything would have been said before I needed to get up to speak for this amendment as one of the sponsors, but I think it may be helpful to your Lordships if I intervene very briefly at this stage. I have very little to add which is original, even in terms of today's debate on Report, but I should like very much to supplement one or two of the things which have been said by the noble Baroness and to counter one or two of the things which have been said by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr.
As regards what the noble Baroness, Lady White, had to say to us, I should like to try to put this in proportion. What is being asked for in this amendment
524
is really quite a small thing in comparison (and the comparison has been made) with the thousands of SSSIs for which full protection was asked and so nearly given during the debate last Thursday—100 votes for and 109 against. All we are asking for—and we very nearly got it, even on a Friday afternoon, in the state of weariness that some of your Lordships were in at that time, on the sixth of those long tedious days in Committee—is full protection for a few, strictly defined critical areas (areas which have been approved as critical areas by Parliament) in those of the 10 national parks—and there are only 10 of them—in which there is significant and characteristic moorland and heath. That is all we are asking, and my own feeling is that I simply cannot accept the view taken and put to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that to have full protection as a longstop, as a last resort, for those limited areas in certain circumstances will forfeit the goodwill of the farming community.
It has not been so, my Lords. The noble Baroness mentioned historic buildings. I should like to add an area which I think, with respect to the noble Baroness, is possibly more germane to what we are talking about—access orders. We have had access orders on the statute book for many years. I do not know of one which has in fact been enforced, but the effect of them has not been to lose goodwill; it has been to strengthen the hands of the local authority negotiating access for the public to ground across a farmer's land. This is a very sensitive area, but that has been done with great success. It has not followed as night follows day (in the words of the noble Earl) that we have lost goodwill over that.
Another point that has not been made this afternoon—and I am guilty of having made it two or three times already in the long run-up to the decision on this Bill—is that we are legislating in the long term. Of course there has been good progress in coming to voluntary agreements on Exmoor, and of course we have the Government's view that it would be preferable to have voluntary agreements; but those voluntary agreements are short-term agreements, and on Exmoor, to my knowledge, they are very short-term agreements in one or two cases that have been negotiated. In this Bill we are negotiating for the next decade at least, and that period is going to be one of great change. To state the obvious, there is going to be change in management, in ownership and in tenancies of farms; there is going to be change in management techniques; there is going to be change in agricultural technology; and there is going to be the continuing incentive to plough land for agricultural purposes. There is going to be change in the whole pattern of our society—more leisure (I think that is generally agreed), more ability to use that leisure and a greater need for outlets of interest in the countryside for more people. I think those are fairly telling arguments for getting on to the statute book full protection for those limited areas that we have in our national parks, in which there is moorland which needs to be conserved.
I regard this as a challenge or test of the Government's seriousness in wishing to fulfill, to conserve and to buttress the original intention for the national parks in the 1949 Act. Unwillingness to do so I really think puts the seriousness of the Government in that respect in some doubt. We were narrowly defeated

525
in a total of 96 votes which were cast in a poorly-attended and somewhat jaded Committee. The votes in favour of the amendment came from all quarters of the Committee, and I venture to hope that this afternoon, well-attended as we are, this amendment will be carried.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, as I moved the original amendment at Committee, I should like to say that I have not changed my views at all. I think that the amendment before the House in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and others is considerably better than my amendment and I want to support it. I am not going to repeat anything that I said last week; but a few things have happened since. First, the Somerset County Council and the Exmoor National Park Authority, having read the debate that we had, are still of the opinion that an amendment along these lines is desirable. Secondly, there has been a study of these matters by Dr. Parry of the University of Birmingham, who quoted the frightening figures in the North York moors, and, as my noble friend Lord Craigton has mentioned this, I shall say no more about that.
Finally, it is worth quoting from a letter to The Times last week written by the chairman of the Exmoor Society as a result of our debate. Part of it says:
"The Government through its agricultural policy is responsible for the ploughing up of Exmoor. As the annual subsidies are paid per animal, more intensive farming leads to larger payments. In 1978, subsidies totalled £1·3 million compared with £34,000 spent by the park authorities on conservation. Thus, the Ministry of Agriculture is paying for the ploughing of Exmoor at the same time as the Department of the Environment are offering grants to the National Parks Authority to prevent the ploughing of Exmoor"
While this absurd situation continues compulsory powers are needed, and I hope that we can all support the amendment.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as I live in the North York Moors National Park and as I was abroad during the Committee stage, perhaps I may say a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, both mentioned the figure of 37,000 acres which were converted between 1950 and 1975. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows, this was mostly an area of poor moorland, most of which was planted by the Forestry Commission and some of which went to farming. I should like to correct any impression that there may be that at the present time there is a danger of large parts of the park being converted. Between 1950 and 1975, the average rate—I have the same figures (provided by the Countryside Commission) as those to which Lord Craigton referred in front of me—works out at 1,500 acres per year. Between 1975 and 1980 it has slowed down to 800 acres a year and the rate at the present time is 245 acres per year, which is slightly less than 0·2 per cent. of the total moorland area.
I am against compulsory powers. It is a very delicate situation. I think that I can say that I love the moors as much as anyone, but I do not believe that what is heather now must be preserved as heather for ever more. On that basis, the national parks would still be forest, as they were after the disappearance of the Ice Age. Heather is very attractive at
526
certain times of the year but provides little in the way of food in the form of supporting sheep or grouse, and the soil deteriorates gradually due to the regular burning. It provides no shelter for man or beast and constitutes a high fire risk. Our national park committee, like all national park committees, I suppose, is not entirely popular. It depends on the goodwill of those who are responsible for day-to-day management in the park. For that reason, I feel it better to try to reach agreement on these matters rather than use compulsory powers.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, as a former chairman of the National Parks Commission and, subsequently, of the Countryside Commission, I should like to endorse what has been said about the great progress made by voluntary agreements, and particularly, as Lord Hunt mentioned, in relation to access agreements. The story has been the same all the way along in the activities of the Countryside Commission and the National Parks Commission before it. The aim has been to preserve what is of worth and value for the purposes of recreation and food production. The problem is that we get into the way of talking when we have compulsory powers in the background (as I think some noble Lords have been talking this afternoon) as though compulsion would be applied instantly to stamp down for ever the existing pattern.
The power of compulsion remains in the background and it has been the experience all along in other fields that it has been held out as though it were a threat to stop all voluntary agreements. But experience has shown that it has been the other way round. Voluntary agreements have been readily made and very often the existence of compulsion in the background has made people keener to proceed along voluntary lines. I hope we shall preserve the voluntary element and retain, only as a last resort and not as a first resort (which is the way it has been discussed this afternoon), the compulsion element.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I shall not delay the House, but I feel very strongly against compulsory powers. People are talking as though farmers are not interested in conservation. We are interested in conservation and in preserving the beauty of the countryside and doing everything to get it used by the public in general, and also in developing it according to voluntary agreements. This idea that the farmers are all intent on ploughing up what is beautiful is rubbish. I have been farming for 40 years. I live quite near some of the parks in the north of England, in Northumbria, and we do not have any trouble. Everybody co-operates with everybody. I have not heard of a single person who has done something against conservation.
There may be some very particular conservationists—I had not met them before taking part in these debates in this House. But in the country where I live, we do not have any problems. There is the idea of starting with compulsion; although the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, said this should be kept in the background. Why have it at all? Why not have goodwill between everybody? I am certain from all my experience of farming (and it has been a long one) that you will get

527
people co-operating. If you try to force people to do things, you raise people's objections. We do not want to plough up land that is best left as it is.
Why are the national parks people always supposed to be right? I had an experience—nothing to do with farming—where we offered (I am a Carnegie trustee) to do something which would have been a great asset to a national park whose identity I shall not disclose; and they refused. We did it somewhere else. We did it in a national park in Wales. It has been a great success. It is a pity to upset the excellent arrangements which exist between the farmers, communities and conservationists. I am strongly opposed to this amendment and I hope we shall defeat it.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a minute. I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, that, so far as I know, nobody who has supported this amendment and this proposition throughout the debates that we have had has ever suggested that the farming community are not interested in conservation. I have never heard that suggested by anybody. What we are concerned about—and this is what the noble Baroness does not appear to understand—is not the problem of dealing with the farmers who have a sense of responsibility; the problem is dealing with the very tiny minority who have no sense of responsibility and who, if they can, will pursue their own interests regardless of the broader public interest.
I want to say a few words about an argument that we have heard repeated over and over again during the course of these debates, not only upon this amendment but also when we were debating the SSSIs. An argument has been repeatedly advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Avon, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that if one introduces an element of compulsion as a last resort then one is automatically going to forfeit the goodwill of the farming community. I think that that is profoundly insulting to the farming community. They are not, in my experience and observation, unreasonable people. They do not claim that they of all people in the community should be released from any compulsory powers at all. They make no such absurd claim. It is irrational and indefensible in principle to suggest that, if a farmer does what he wants to do on his own land and is made subject to some legal sanction, that, however injurious what he may be doing is to the public interest, is unreasonable coercion. We have had this word "coercion" bandied about in these debates. It is a pejorative word.
If it is right to stipulate that a farmer is forbidden to plough up land where it is obviously against the general public interest and where Parliament has said that it should not happen, then it is as unreasonable to call that coercion as it is to describe as coercion the fining of somebody who drives without due care and attention. The second reason why I suggest that this argument about alienating the farming community is baseless is that it is manifestly unreasonable. I should like to occupy two minutes in spelling out to the House—because I believe this is still not understood—what has to happen, what long process has to occur, before the compulsory element is brought into play.
528
Under these amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady White, introduced, compulsion does not begin to enter into the matter until the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Environment have together decided that there is an area of land in one of the national parks—and, as the noble Baroness said, this is limited to national parks—so important that it ought to be designated as such. What standards will the Ministers apply when they come to make a designation order of that kind? This is not a moorland conservation order, this is the prior designation of land of particular value. I suggest that the standard they are likely to apply—and let it be borne in mind that the Ministry of Agriculture are going to have their say in this—is the one spoken of by Lord Porchester in his report, when he said:
"A category of land should be established where change from the traditional appearance should be resisted with the utmost determination. All, in other words, should be made as safe for all time as the uncertainties of both human and natural affairs may allow".
Is not that the standard which the Ministers themselves are going to adopt before they begin to designate the land?
That is the first step. My Lords, what happens next? It is that that order made by the Ministers is subject to annulment by a resolution of either of the Houses of Parliament. There is that safety net there. If the Ministers have it wrong, if they have gone too far, either House can call them to correction under the Negative procedure.
When all that has been done, nothing stops the farmer who wants to develop his land—even when his land falls within one of these designated areas—from notifying the national parks committee that he wants to convert it. When he does that, under Clause 34 all the processes of negotiation and voluntary agreement come into play; all the things that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was talking about, voluntary agreements arrived at by two parties arguing on an equal basis. All that comes into force and there is the process of negotiation. Then the Ministers or the national parks committee, if those negotiations fail, cannot make a moorland conservation order unless first of all—and these are the new words brought into the amendment—the national parks committee have offered a management agreement to the farmer, and that has been refused, or if there is reason to apprehend that the farmer is going to go ahead and convert the land without even giving the notification.
Then what is the next step in the matter, my Lords? Once that is done and once the order has been made, either by the parks committee or the Ministers, anybody who wants to object to it can do so. They have all the rights that anyone has under the planning law where a planning permission is applied for and is refused: they have all the powers to go before a Ministry inspector and have the case heard and then the Secretary of State either confirms or does not confirm the order. It is only if the order is then confirmed after all that long procedure that the farmer automatically becomes entitled to compensation.
It may be, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was saying, that the compensation provisions contained in these amendments are not all that they might be. Maybe they are not, but that can be cured very easily.

529
If only the Government would accept the principle of the last resort power, then they could if they wished and if they think that ours are unsatisfactory, introduce their own proposals for the compensation of the person who is denied the right to develop his land. It is only therefore at this very last resort that, if the farmer converts the land in defiance of the Ministers, in defiance of Parliament and in defiance of the national parks committee, he renders himself liable to a fine. It is an absurdity to pretend that the National Farmers' Union or the Country Landowners' Association are people so irrational and so unreasonable that they think this is coercion and is treating their communities unjustly. It is not an argument that we ought to hear in opposition to these amendments.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, I did not intervene in this debate when the subject was raised at the Committee stage. I want to speak for only one minute now and raise two points, one of which has not been sufficiently emphasised. I believe that farmers and landlords are going to be under greater pressure to maximise their assets than they have ever been since the 1947 Act came into being. We must realise that there will be very much greater pressure on farmers in the future to maximise their land to be able to carry more sheep and cattle. That is a danger that we have not had emphasised enough in this debate. Owing to the political state of farming the matter is more urgent now than it was.
The second point relates to the residual powers which some people seem to fear so much. To my mind, there is a very good example why those fears are exaggerated. For a very short period I had the honour to be chairman of the Forestry Commission. Ever since the Forestry Commission was founded in 1919 it has had compulsion powers in the background. I am not quite sure whether they have been used. I tried to confirm this with a member of the commission just before lunch. I believe that, if they have ever been used, the number of times could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The fact that there were residual powers to use compulsion has not invalidated all the voluntary acquisitions and agreements made with the Forestry Commission and I think perhaps that has not been emphasised quite enough in this debate. I do not want to say more, my Lords.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may, emboldened by the presence of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, I should like to enter a small plea on behalf of the two Front Benches and those other noble Lords who intend to be here tonight for the discussion of Amendment No. 183, which is the last one on the Marshalled List, because it is my understanding that we should finish the Bill today. We had two substantial opening speeches from my noble friend and from the noble Earl opposite on this amendment, which we discussed at great length at Committee stage. It is a very important matter. It seems to me, first, that a number of the arguments raised at the Committee stage have been met in the new version of the amendment. Secondly, all that can be said in favour of it and I dare say most of what is to be said against it—although the noble Earl still has to speak—has been said; and it
530
might be the wish of the House to come to a decision on the matter as soon as possible. I hope that this time the House will come to the right decision.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in spite of the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I rise for one minute, because the noble Baroness, Lady White, took us back to the remote days of 1968, when it was my responsibility to present the 1968 Countryside Act to this House. She said that I had told the House it would be all right with voluntary arrangements and that we should not press for compulsory arrangements. She is right: I did say that and I very well remember the arguments coming from the farming side while the Bill was being drafted. They said: "Give it a try. We too are alarmed at the loss of wild heath in the national park and we too are alarmed at the rate of ploughing. Give the voluntary system a try and if the rate of loss does not come down under that system, then we can always put up with compulsion introduced later by Parliament".
I thought at that time this might be an error of judgment. I think all the Ministers concerned felt that, but we agreed to give it a try. We defended the voluntary system against some objections from conservationists who at that time would have liked to go straight to compulsion. Here we are 13 years later and I think the figures we have heard today are pretty conclusive. It has not worked. I think now that it was an error of judgment on our part in those days to go along with another decade—because we knew it would be a decade—of the voluntary system. I submit that the system has not worked well enough and I ally myself posthumously, as it were, with those who now seek to introduce compulsion. I hope very much that the Committee will agree to this today.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, just before the noble Earl speaks I should like to ask this one question. Since December 1979, 1,319 acres of moorland on Exmoor have been notified as being ploughed up; that is four acres every working day. If that agreement is given by them to plough this up, or it is not given and it is not covered by voluntary agreements, how much is it going to cost? Is the voluntary agreement going to cost more than compulsion? If it does, then there is no harm and it shows that compulsion is necessary. If not, it shows that compulsion is going to do no harm. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, we are not talking about people moving in straight away with compulsion. We are talking about the ultimate argument of the Government right in the background. The other point one should make is this. I do not believe all men are saints. Some people do; but I think that human nature has shown that, on the whole, they are not.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, I was not present at the Committee stage: I was away convalescing. I should like now to put two points on this amendment. First, as to the North Yorkshire moors, my noble friend Lord Craigton talked about the loss of 37,000 acres in the last 15 years. In fact, if you go back in history a large proportion of this moorland was agricultural land and at the time of the Napoleonic wars large parts of the North Yorkshire moors were growing

531
wheat. If you go further back you will find on the whole of the Yorkshire moors the Beehive Querns. This shows that it was then all arable land.
Why has there been this change? Partly because with tourism sheep on the open roads have been destroyed. During the last 10 years we have had 500 sheep a year slaughtered by motorists on two moorland roads. As a result, farmers give up sheep farming and their only hope is to use the plough to bring it back to what it was before agricultural depression succeeded the Napoleonic wars. The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that money is the root of all evil, but I beg this House to realise that we are concerned with a man's livelihood. Small farmers had small flocks of sheep and now are turning to cattle on the hills and to arable land. With great difficulty we are getting them to co-operate as best they can with the park authority in North Yorkshire and also with the archaeological side. By voluntary agreements you will get that.
That is the benefit of the present Clause 34. If we then put a pistol to the head by means of the compulsory powers of this amendment we shall exacerbate the relationship between the farmers on those moors and the authorities who are seeking to conserve the countryside. Bracken is growing every year on the North Yorkshire Moors. Somehow, by spraying or ploughing, we have to eradicate the bracken and make that land productive. I hope that nothing this House does today will destroy what are we trying to do to get co-operation between the farmers and the conservationists.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, was very kind in her introduction. I nearly interjected when she said that we were last discussing this matter on Friday the 13th, because of course we have now passed Friday, 13th March, and on that day we very nearly discussed it again but stopped in time at 11 p.m. the day before. The noble Baroness also said that I ought to be looking for a longstop. I am not quite sure in which place in the cricket field I would need to be, if I needed a long-stop—whether I would be a wicket-keeper, in which case I might be offended; whether I might be a bowler, in which case I might be slightly offended; but as a batsman I do not think I would mind too much.
Many people have commented about the Government's seriousness and realistic approach. We believe that what we are doing is realistic and we also believe that the voluntary system is working. I should like briefly to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said when he produced his statistics from 1968 on. I am really going back to 1977 on, when we went into this voluntary agreement in a big way. We believe that since 1977 it has been working and that is why the Department of the Environment, in particular, is happy to see the way ahead without a compulsory order being necessary.
These three new clauses introduced by the noble Baroness, and the associated amendments, are basically similar to those which we debated and rejected in Committee. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the differences of significance are, first, that they include a provision that the national park authority must offer the farmer a voluntary management agreement
532
before the compulsory moorland conservation order power would be usable. Secondly, forestry as well as agricultural operations carried out on moor or heath land would be brought within the scope of the power.
The Government remain steadfastly opposed to these new clauses and associated amendments. I explained our reasons in some detail at Committee stage and I do not propose to detain the House by restating them today, particularly as many of them have been quoted. All I will say is that the position in Exmoor is exceptional, as we all agree. The farming community there is showing every sign of co-operating to the full in the voluntary approach to moorland conservation. I believe that this spirit of goodwill would be in jeopardy if the House were to write these compulsory provisions into the Bill, and this could have frightening consequences for Exmoor. I am convinced that, by making these changes to the Bill, we shall prejudice the very things we hold dear.
The argument has been adduced that, leaving aside Exmoor, it would be a prudent step to incorporate the provisions in order to be ready to deal with a similar problem arising in other national parks. But in no other national park is the position so exceptional. The North Yorkshire moors have been mentioned, and various statistics have been quoted, particularly by my noble friend Lord Ingleby. According to my statistics, in 1980 the area of moorland and open land remaining was over 195 square miles and the rate of loss over the previous five years was ½ per cent., which is slightly up on my noble friend's figure of 0.2 per cent.; 1.9 square miles were converted to agriculture in this period and another 4.7 square miles were converted to forestry.
At this rate of loss, it will take many years before the extent of moorland remaining in the North Yorkshire moors can be regarded as having reached a critical stage. May I say together with other noble Lords, that I myself was brought up in North Yorkshire in my youth, and I would miss the heather very much, as well. The Government will, of course, be prepared to make a moorland notification order in any national park if, at any time, it becomes clear that such action is warranted.
During the Committee stage, one or two figures were bandied about, including something which my noble friend Lord Onslow raised just now. I think we discussed in Committee the fact that if we rely on management agreements in Exmoor, we may find the public paying an awesome figure; I think that £600,000 a year was mentioned. This, however, was based on 40,000 acres. But if I may draw your Lordships' attention to the Porchester Report, that found that only 12,800 acres were theoretically at risk. Even if all this had to have management agreements, which is extremely unlikely, and even if they all cost the same as the one which was quoted—which is not certain—the figure would, of course, be even less than one-third of the mythical £600,000. We also talked about management agreements being more expensive. This is not really so, because it is obviously cheaper to make an annual agreement than to pay out the lump sums which would be required all at once. It was also said that management agreements do not last long enough, but 20 years is quite a good lease even if there are break clauses in that lease.

533
The noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned the subject of compensation. I am informed that, under the present compensation code, there is provision for capital sum payments only. Capital sum compensation applies to all planning decisions, and it applies throughout the whole field of compensation. There also would be practical difficulties in attempting annual payments.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady David, who said in Committee that she thought there might be trouble over the question of compensation. Usually, a farmer does not want to part with the rights to his land in exchange for money that will not buy him other land at all easily. With management agreements, payment terms will no longer be without guiding rules. A major fault which Lord Porchester spotted is being removed by the Somerset County Council's agreement with the CLA and the NFU. On the other hand, as I understand it, moorland compensation orders would provide also a lump sum, but not annual payments which a farmer often wants. I hope that our case is clear. I spoke at some length in Committee and I hope, in view of what I have said, that the House will decide to reject these new clauses and the associated amendments.
Baroness White: My Lords, the only point that I am still not entirely clear about is the point on compensation, where the noble Earl quite properly said that the present arrangement would be for lump sums only. It appears to me that that is not necessarily immutable. He later said that there might be some difficulties. Every Government says that there are difficulties about changing arrangements. I do not believe that that is an insuperable argument for substituting ultimately, if necessary, a compulsory management agreement, if that seems to be the most suitable thing to do. So I do not think that his argument was the least conclusive. I think that we want to come to a decision, so I shall not comment, if noble Lords will forgive me, on any of the other points that have been made in this interesting debate.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 173D) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Chorley, L.

Airedale, L.

Clancarty, E.

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Amulree, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ardwick, L.

Craigton, L.

Avebury, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Bacon, B.

David, B.

Balogh, L.

Denington, B.

Banks, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Beswick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blyton, L.

Fletcher, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Briginshaw, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Brockway, L.

George-Brown, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gibson, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Byers, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Caradon, L.

Gosford, E.

534

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grey, E.

Ridley, V.

Hale, L.

Robbins, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Hayter, L.

Segal, L.

Hooson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hunt, L.

Sligo, M.

Janner, L.

Somers, L.

Jeger, B.

Spens, L.

Kennet, L.

Stamp, L.

Killearn, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Leonard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Strauss, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Melchett, L.

Underhill, L.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Onslow, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

White, B. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Allerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alport, L.

Ilchester, E.

Auckland, L.

Ingleby, V.

Avon, E.

Kemsley, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Birdwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Burton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

De Freyne, L.

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Derwent, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Digby, L.

Newall, L.

Donegall, M.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Orkney, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Peel, E.

Eccles, V.

Portland, D.

Effingham, E.

Reigate, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Just, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Feversham, L.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Soames, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathspey, L.

Gowrie, E.

Suffield, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Hawke, L.

Westbury, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wise, L.

Henley, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 173E and 173EA not moved.]
Clause 35 [Grants and loans for purposes of National Parks]:
4.14 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment 173EB:
Page 32, line 8, at end insert—
(" (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, the council shall ensure that any person receiving a grant or loan under this section in respect of premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any) make provision, insofar as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the premises who are disabled.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment, together with Amendment No. 173YA, last week. The principle was accepted, so I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173F:
Leave out Clause 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this amendment to give me an opportunity to raise with the Government the question of the Norfolk Broads. I gave the noble Earl notice that I intended to do this at the Committee stage, but we reached this part of the Bill very late on one day or another—I cannot remember which—and the general view was that as we were going at such breakneck speed we ought to leave this matter until Report.
This clause provides powers for the purposes of national parks. I want to raise with the Government the problems and difficulties which are being faced by all those who take an interest in the area of the Norfolk Broads, notably by the Norfolk County Council and the other organisations which make up the consortium which is currently responsible for that area, and in particular the financial problems which they face. I shall not delay the House with a long exposition of the importance of this area, but would like to put briefly on the record from the nature conservation point of view that the Ramsar Convention of 1976 recognises areas of the Bure Marshes, 400 hectares, and Hickling, Horsey and Martham, 900 hectares. Those are two of the 13 Ramsar sites which are recognised in the United Kingdom. In the Nature Conservation Review, which is the list prepared for the Nature Conservancy Council, of the top 700-plus sites in the United Kingdom, there are four grade 1 starred sites, seven grade 1 sites, and two grade 2 sites, a total of nearly 3,000 hectares, all in the Norfolk Broads area. In addition, there are 450 hectares of local nature reserve. And 2,100 hectares are designated as sites of special scientific interest at 18 different spots in the Broads.
The landscape significance of the Broads goes without saying. It is a unique mixture. This is borne out by the recreational significance of the area. There are 200 kilometres of lock-free navigation, with 14 associated navigable lakes. It is the single most important location for boat cruising holidays in the United Kingdom. There are now over 2,800 hire cruisers registered on the system. It is estimated that
536
annually about one-quarter of a million people spend their holidays in the Broads. In addition, there are all those people who are interested in sailing, rowing, canoeing and fishing. There are 8,000 private boats registered for use on the system. In other words, the Norfolk Broads area is of major importance from the nature conservation, landscape and recreation point of view. Taking all those things together, it is one of the most important areas in the entire country. This importance has been recognised over a very long period of time, both in the Dower and in the Hobhouse Reports. It was always one of the areas which was envisaged as a likely candidate for national park status.
As noble Lords will know, a national park has not been designated, not because the area is intrinsically not of national park quality but rather for administrative reasons and because it was felt that many of its problems could be more effectively dealt with by the local consortium of planning, water and navigation authorities. Having taken that decision, particularly for the local authorities involved it seems to me that it is desperately important that a success should be made of it. One of the most important things, in the view of all those concerned, is that the Government should give an indication that they are satisfied that the broadland area, although it is not a national park, is of national park quality and status in terms of the things I have set out—the nature conservation importance, the landscape importance and the recreation importance—and an assurance, which I hope the noble Earl will be able to give to your Lordships' House today, that they recognise the importance of this area and that they will be acting on it.
Because this did not come up at the Committee stage, the noble Earl kindly wrote to me, and in that letter he told me that the chairman of the Countryside Commission had written to the Secretary of State at the same time as I wrote to the noble Earl, saying that I should be bringing this matter up at the Report stage of the Bill. I understand that the chairman of the Countryside Commission has put forward proposals for the next three years, as a follow-up to the commission's initial involvement in the formation of the Broads' authority. I know that the commission has made a number of important proposals to which the local authorities, and in particular the Norfolk County Council, attach the greatest possible importance. So I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me an assurance that the Government recognise the scope of the problems that the Broads face, and the importance of recognising, from the Government's level, the national significance of those problems and the national help that will he needed to help the consortium to sort them out locally. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think this clause has been given a general welcome. The idea is that, although national park authorities have a general power to do anything to conserve natural beauty and a number of specific powers to do various things, they have never been empowered specifically to assist the activities of others who are also moved by conservation objectives, like farmers and landowners. There could be circumstances in which another party

537
genuinely wants to tackle an important job, but lacks the finance. This clause makes pooling possible; efforts and costs can be shared. This is the principle upon which the Countryside Commission assists countryside projects under their grant-aiding powers. It is not always appropriate for the Commission to do this in a national park. The National Park Authorities are part of local government, with their own financial responsibility and it will be up to them to consider in what instances to use the new power and what conditions to place on an offer or grant of a loan.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has spoken eloquently about the parallel need for conservation of the natural beauty and the wildlife of the Norfolk Broads. I should like to speak for a minute or two on that subject. We are in no doubt about the importance of the Norfolk Broads, and we welcome the local government initiatives and the work of the Countryside Commission, which has resulted in the formation of a Broads Authority. The authority has now been functioning for about two years and it approaches the environmental problems of the area on a wide-ranging basis. It has been grant-aided by the Countryside Commission, which has recently put to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, a proposal for further financial assistance until the end of 1984. This would be a substantial commitment which would require adequate consideration with the Commission and between departments. We know that the local authorities concerned await the outcome with keenness but the implications have yet to be fully examined and assessed.
Concern about the environment of the Broads was emphasised at the Committee stage, and I am delighted to have had this opportunity to speak about the activities. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows, we are later going to discuss the inland drainage boards, so I will not mention them at this time; but I hope that what I have said will convince the noble Lord that the Government are watching this situation, that they do indeed give it a high priority and that they fully recognise the significance of the Norfolk Broads.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl has said, particularly his last sentence, which seemed to me to go a long way towards meeting the concerns of those locally about having to face quite appalling problems and a number of conflicts of interest which give rise to great difficulties, while at the same time having to cater for the very large number of visitors to the area, who I think are welcomed by all concerned but who do bring some problems in their wake. I hope the Government will be able to give very speedy consideration to the proposals that have been put to them in connection with this area for the next five years, as the noble Earl has mentioned that the Government are doing, and that the conclusion they come to will be that, although there is some financial commitment being called for, this really is the very minimum that they can give to the area—unless the Broads are going to collapse under the weight of all the pressures on them and the quarter of a million visitors annually who go there for their holidays, as well as everybody concerned with the nature conservation and the amenity aspects of the area, they will
538
have nothing left for all those purposes. Alternatively, some more drastic steps will have to be taken to enforce conservation and other things on the area, which I do not think is the approach that the consortium at the moment wish to take. Having said that, I think that the noble Earl went a long way to meet the fears of those locally, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173FA not moved.]
4.26 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173G:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended as follows:

(a) in section 5(2), for the words "extensive tracts" there shall be substituted the word "areas";

(b) after paragraph (b) of section 5(2), there shall be added the following paragraph:

"(c) the extent to which, taken together, such areas are representative of upland, lowland, farmed, non-farmed, wetland, hill and mountain areas in England and Wales,";

(c) in section 6(1), after the words "commencement of this Act," there shall be inserted the words "within 12 months of the commencement of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather wider amendment about the national parks, which again was tabled at the Committee stage, but at the time it seemed to me that we were moving so quickly that there was no opportunity to give it reasonable consideration and therefore I withdrew it then and tabled it again at this stage. I am afraid it is one of the victims of the breakneck speed at which we tried to take some points in Committee, to meet the wishes of the noble Lord the Chief Whip and others. But I will, of course, try to take it as briefly as I possibly can today—and I hope that the clock may be corrected so that it does not appear that I have been speaking for five minutes before I start!
This amendment is designed to ensure that the Countryside Commisssion, when looking at the provision of national parks, take a wider view than they appear to have done in the period since the 1949 Act was passed, although I do not think it would require them to take a wider view than was the intention of many of those who were involved in the initial work and indeed in the debates during the passing of the 1949 Act. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, here, because I wanted to start by quoting a recommendation from the noble Lord's report on national parks, where the noble Lord's committee recommended that, in considering possible new national parks, the commission should examine more diverse types of landscape, provided that they are of the highest quality, than the rugged uplands which dominate our existing parks, with the partial exception of the Pembrokeshire Coast Park. That is what the amendment would aim to ensure happens.
There are two parts to it; the first part is quite simply dealt with. The words, "extensive tracts", which appear in the 1949 Act would be removed and the word, "areas", substituted. It has been suggested to me that the words "extensive tracts" have been

539
taken to mean extensive tracts of open countryside, such as moorland or mountain. I do not believe that was the intention of those who framed the 1949 Act and, from looking at it, it seems to me that it certainly was not the intention of those who took part in the debates when the 1949 Act went through both Houses of Parliament. But it has been suggested that those words do place some restriction on the areas which can be covered by national parks. I do not think that is right, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I think it would be useful to remove those words and to substitute, "areas".
The second paragraph, paragraph (b), would ensure that, as Lord Sandford's committee recommended, the commission would look at more diverse types of landscape and, for example, would ensure that they looked at areas like the Norfolk Broads or the South Downs in determining whether there should be new national parks, and, if so, where. When the 1949 Act was being framed both the Norfolk Broads and the South Downs were serious candidates for inclusion for designation as national parks, as serious indeed as many of the areas that were designated. In looking at this Bill and the stage we have reached with it, it seems to me that we are offering very little that is new—indeed, absolutely nothing that is new except very minor matters by way of landscape and habitat conservation. This Bill when it becomes an Act is going to be in very sharp contrast to the 1949 Act in that respect. Nobody, I would suggest, is going to look back at the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in the same way as we look at the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and see the many dramatically successful measures which flowed from that. The creation of national parks in this country has been a great post-war success in this field, and something which I am afraid this Bill is not going to follow in any way. It therefore seemed to me that it might be as well, if we were not going to do anything else, at least to build on our greatest post-war success and ensure that we could go on looking at national parks and their designation in a constructive and open-minded and positive way. Lord Sandford's committee seemed to me to point the way to ensure that we could do that.
My Lords, I hope that the Government will find that, although they have not been able to be very forthcoming about a number of other proposals put forward in this Bill, this one does have some attractions because of the success that the existing national parks have had. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, under the relevant provisions of the 1949 Act, all national parks must at present be "extensive tracts of country" which meet two criteria; natural beauty and the
"opportunities they afford for open-air recreation, having regard both to their character and to their position in relation to centres of population".
In practice, these requirements dictate that national parks should be predominantly located in upland regions (although the Pembrokeshire Coast Park is a notable exception). These are not farmed extensively and they therefore provide large areas in which there exists comparatively ready public access. By
540
deleting the statutory reference to "extensive tracts" and adding its proposed third criterion for designation, the amendment would set in motion, within 12 months of the commencement of the Act, a new programme of national park designation covering lowland farming areas and wetlands. Such an initiative could be unrealistic, partly because of the reserve costs of such a programme, but also more generally: national park designation is basically inappropriate in lowland areas, owing to the general incompatibility between their intensive farming operations and the opportunities afforded for open-air recreation. Even if the amendment were passed this last factor might in practice preclude most potential candidates for designation as new national parks: the lack of widespread access in most lowland areas would mean that the second criterion for national parks designation could not be met.
I have been listening to what the noble Lord has said with some interest because I think what he says makes a lot of sense. I think he probably knows that the Countryside Commission has been looking at areas of outstanding natural beauty and that the Government are going to read its review later on in the year, but that is a slightly different topic. What the noble Lord is doing is slightly broadening the scope of the Bill, and, although I can see that there would probably be very little land which would come under its scope, it does seem to me that we ought to consider it. We obviously have not heard the noble Lord's arguments before. I should like to have another look at the amendment if he will withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, perhaps, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I may make one observation on the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned the work of our committee. My own feeling is that if the scope for designation is going to be extended in the future we have to move in the direction of the French regional parks, which are concerned not only with things like public access and conservation of natural beauty but with making a positive and beneficial contribution to the welfare of the people who live in the areas. The French regional parks now extend to about 20. Just to take a few examples, the one designated for the Carmargue is concerned with the regeneration of the rural economy of the area, which has collapsed since they ceased trying to grow rice in the delta. The one in Brière, which is on the edge of St. Nazaire, deals with the two social problems of preserving a traditional area of marshland, like the Broads, and at the same time coping with the pressure from the urban area, St. Nazaire, on the very fragile rural area. The French regional park in Normandy attempts to deal with the whole problem of the depopulation of the bocage. Unless there is some positive contribution for the benefit of the people who live in the areas concerned, I do not think it is going to be politically possible to make much headway.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I very strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said. We all hope that his amendment which your Lordships have passed will be a start in moving in that direction, which seems to me absolutely right. I suppose the

541
sorts of things the Countryside Commission have done in their management experiments in a minor way are also in the spirit of what the noble Lord mentioned—an attempt not to make a national park designation any sort of threat to landowners and farmers but a source of positive help in meeting the pressures and difficulties which inevitably follow from farming in an area which a lot of people like to visit for holidays or for other purposes. It really was with that in mind that I moved this amendment; we would be talking about areas like the Norfolk Broads, which, as I said previously, a quarter of a million people already visit every year for a holiday, where there are already considerable pressures, and where it seems to me that there would be enormous scope not only for the sort of activities that Lord Sandford mentioned but also for the sort of help which the National Parks Authority and the Countryside Commission are able to give in national parks to the people who live and work there.
There is one thing that the noble Earl said which I strongly disagreed with. I shall be careful how I put this, even though the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not in his place. It does seem to me unfair of people who farm in the uplands to think that they should always be considered in some way to have an easier life than those of us who farm in the lowlands, to the extent that they are quite capable of managing millions of visitors every year on their farms whereas those of us who farm in the lowlands cannot. I simply do not see the logic of that. Moors and other areas of national parks are farmed. The noble Earl said, I think, that they were not intensively farmed, but it sounded as if he said "extensively", which I do not think he can have meant; I shall look at his remarks with interest tomorrow. In any event, they are farmed, and people visiting national parks are visiting areas which are farmed.
That is part of the joy of visiting a national park, apart from the uniqueness of the national park system we have in this country. These are areas where people live and work and where they make their living. They are in that respect not very different from lowland areas. There are many lowland areas with extensive rights of way and public access and where there are already enormous numbers of visitors. In that respect, I do not see them as very different from upland areas. There are other lowland areas where, it seems to me, there is still considerable scope for absorbing more visitors, and more visitors there might mean less pressure in the uplands, where I dare say some farmers at some times feel there is more visiting than farming going on. That was part of the drive of this amendment, not necessarily simply to take pressure off the uplands but to help in that respect by allowing the commission to consider creating more parks in the lowland areas, which would incidentally be much closer to the main centres of population than existing national parks.
The noble Earl kindly said he would consider what I have said. I hope he will take into account what has been said since he sat down by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and by me. I look forward to hearing some response from him, and no doubt if we cannot amend this in your Lordships' House it would be a matter that could be taken up in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173GA:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments of Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944
. Section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 shall be amended by the insertion of the words "such advice to take into account nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests," after the words "agricultural matters".".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 173GA. I apologise for the fact that four of my amendments have come in a row. However, we now return to a more serious matter in the sense that I hope that the Government will now be prepared to accept this amendment. We discussed this amendment in Committee. It concerns the Strutt Report and the role that ADAS—the advisers to farmers on farming matters—might play in giving advice about nature conservation and wildlife. However, the only change in the amendment since we discussed it in Committee is one deletion to meet a drafting error which the noble Earl kindly pointed out to me when I moved the amendment at that stage.
This matter has a long history which we went into in Committee and I shall not repeat it now save to say that there has been, I think it is fair to say, unanimous support from both farmers and all those concerned in the agricultural industry, and nature conservationists, that it would be sensible for ADAS officers, when they are going about their jobs and giving advice to farmers on nature conservation matters, also to be in a position when giving that advice to take into account the interests of nature conservation and wildlife.
That was recommended by the Strutt Committee which was an agricultural committee, not a conservation committee, and one appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture. It was accepted in principle by the last Government and accepted in principle by this Government. It was not implemented, quite wrongly in my view, by the last Government because of shortage of resources and we now have the position that this Government are in at the moment which is, as I understand it, that when they introduced changes to the farm capital grants scheme last year they explicitly said that the changes they were introducing, the savings in manpower and administrative costs that they had introduced by abolishing prior approval, would enable them to ensure that ADAS spent more time giving advice on wildlife and nature conservation matters. That comes very close, I suppose, to accepting in full the Strutt recommendation.
The purpose of putting this amendment into the Bill is simply to ensure that the Government have actually accepted in full the Strutt recommendation. The implications of course will be that wildlife and nature conservation matters will have to be taken into account in training those who work for ADAS, and all ADAS officers would be told that when they gave advice they should, wherever possible and where it was practicable, sensible and seemed to be desirable, give advice which took into account nature conservation and wildlife interests.
As I understand it, the Government have not gone that far and, in fact, the noble Earl wrote me a letter after our debate in Committee which seemed to me slightly to avoid the issue by praying in aid Section 11

543
of the Countryside Act, which has been on the statute book all the way through this process—the period when Strutt reported, throughout the last Government; and then this Government have failed to implement what everybody else thought was a sensible idea. Section 11 of the Countryside Act has been in existence all the time and it did not lead to Strutt being implemented.
Section 11 of the Countryside Act requires Ministers and public bodies to have regard to the needs of conservation. As I understand it, the Government's argument is that it already allows them to implement the Strutt Report. I do not think that they go as far as saying that Section 11 requires them to implement the Strutt Report, because if it did so obviously the last Government would have so implemented it. Therefore, it seems to me, if I may say so to the noble Earl, that Section 11 is a total red herring, that it really does not bear on this amendment and that it should not be used as a way of avoiding the point that this amendment is directed to, which is to require the Strutt recommendation to be implemented.
This amendment ensures that when ADAS gives advice it will take into account the nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests. It is a simple point and one which I think, as far as I can gather from the mists of the Government's responses both in Committee and in letter, that the Government have substantially accepted. It is one that has always had complete support from both sides of your Lordships' House and, as I have said, from both agricultural and conservation interests. I very much hope that, having had a chance to think about it, the Government will now accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course we recognise the intention of this amendment and, in our discussions at the Committee stage, I promised to look further into the question of its desirability and did so. Moreover, as the noble Lord has said, I also put my thoughts into writing. As the noble Lord has explained, his purpose, by this amendment, is to implement the recommendation of the Strutt Committee that the role of ADAS should be extended to include conservation advice to farmers. Our case continues to rest, with respect, with the view that this does not require fresh legislation. As I explained when we debated this earlier, Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 already requires that all Ministers, Government departments and public bodies—including ADAS— should have regard to the needs of conservation in pursuing their functions related to land. In fact, implementation of this aspect of the Strutt Report is dependent not on statutory changes, but on the availability of resources to enable ADAS to extend its existing knowledge of environmental matters and develop its capacity to provide guidance to farmers on conservation.
As my noble friend Lord Mansfield reported to the House last year, some of the savings achieved in the recent streamlining of the administration of MAFF capital grants will be used and are being used to help enhance this side of ADAS's work. Furthermore, there will he shortly issued to ADAS staff a booklet
544
on habitat and species conservation which has benefited from advice from the NCC and the Countryside Commission. I understand that the booklet will be called Conservation Guidelines—a Guide to Wildlife Habitats on Farms. I, therefore, submit to the House that this amendment is unnecessary as a statutory provision not only exists, but is being applied. I hope that with those few remarks the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, first I should like to correct the noble Earl on a matter. The amendment does not require ADAS to give advice on nature conservation and wildlife. I think that it would be presumptuous of anybody to make such a suggestion and I do not think that that was the suggestion made by the Strutt Report. The amendment says that when ADAS is giving advice to farmers on agricultural matters, such advice should take into account nature conservation, wildlife and landscape interests. In other words, all that the amendment does is to say to ADAS officers, "When you are giving advice to farmers, as you do so effectively and efficiently and in a way that is so widely welcomed by everyone in agriculture, take into account wildlife and nature conservation". It seems to me that that is a recipe for trying to avoid some of the conflicts which will otherwise arise in the countryside between farmers and nature conservationists. When a farmer rings ADAS for advice on anything from clearing a dyke, to a drainage proposal, to spraying or whatever, the advice that he gets will take into account the interests of nature conservation. That is not the same as giving advice on nature conservation and I hope that the noble Earl and his advisers will take that point on board, because it is an important one.
The noble Earl then went on to say that implementing this does not require fresh legislation. I can certainly accept that that is the case. But there is a different point which I am trying to make and that is to require the Government to do this does need fresh legislation. Perhaps I may make the point again to ensure that it is clear to the noble Earl. I know that he can do what Strutt wanted him to do under existing legislation, but the problem has been that both the last Government and this Government have not done it. Both have shilly-shallied, avoided and dodged the issue. That has been done by both the last Labour Government and the current Government. I am suggesting that we should pass an amendment which requires the Government to do this. They may not need legislation to enable them to do it, but they clearly need legislation to require them to do it and that is what this amendment would do.
We have had a number of debates—including at least one today—on issues upon which noble Lords on all sides of the House strongly disagree. This is not an amendment of that sort. As I have said, it has been one that has always united nature conservationists and farming interests against, first, the last Labour Government and now the present Government, for want of implementing it. I think that this Bill provides us with an opportunity at least for getting into law the matters on which we all agree, and it would be a great pity if we missed that opportunity. I hope that the House will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173GB:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973
The Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 is amended as follows—

(a) in section 1(a)(iii), after "nature conservation" insert "and all wildlife";

(b) after sub-paragraph (iii) of section 1(1)(a) insert the following sub-paragraph—

"(iii)(a) the promotion of the enjoyment by the public of all wildlife; and";

(c) in sub-paragraph (iv) of section 1(1)(a) for the words "sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) above" substitute the words "sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii)(a) above";

(d) at the end of subsection (2) of section 1 insert—

"wildlife" means all wild creatures and wild plants").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I have the attention of noble Lords opposite, this amendment is, again, one that we discussed in Committee, where I moved a much more substantial amendment to the Nature Conservancy Council Act. I listened very carefully to everything that was said in that debate and it seemed to me that there was a fair amount of agreement about the point at which these amendments strike.
My previous amendment concerned the question of those appointed to the Nature Conservancy Council and the question of enforcement by the Nature Conservancy Council of wildlife legislation. I have dropped both those matters from the amendment. I simply want to see whether we cannot ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council takes an interest not only in the strictly scientific aspects of nature conservation but in the wider, more popular aspects of nature conservation and wildlife, which, after all, are the matters in which most people in this country are interested. I know that the scientific aspects of nature conservation are of great interest to the experts, but most people are interested in wildlife in general, not necessarily in the rarer species, which are either very difficult or impossible to see and are not the kind of things on which your Lordships' House has spent some time in dealing with various parts of the Bill, such as the bar-tailed godwit or even bats—dare I say that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton? The public are more interested in the more everyday birds and the more everyday and highly visible mammals—at least the few that are visible.
It seems to me that if we are legislating for many years in the future—which we are in this Bill—it is important that the Nature Conservancy Council should be in a position within its statutory powers to respond to this popular view of nature conservation, to cater for it and, above all, to encourage it. That is what the amendment would do.
I dropped the words "natural history", which I think the noble Earl in his previous reply—in at least as much of it as I understood—convinced me were not suitable for inclusion in the amendment. However, I hope that simply to include "wildlife" (which after all is the title of this Bill) is uncontroversial and will be acceptable to both the Nature Conservancy Council, which I am sure will respond by saying that they already do this—in which case I see no harm in having it made clear in the statute—and the Government; for it seems to me to reflect the views on this Bill and the views of noble Lords on all sides of the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have noted with great care the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has couched this revision of his earlier amendment in Committee. However, I am afraid that the Government still consider this amendment to be at best unnecessary and at worst an embarrassment, particularly in relation to the duty to promote public enjoyment of all wildlife.
I shall try to explain this. So far as the Government and the NCC are concerned, nature conservation embraces all wildlife and includes both flora and fauna. Furthermore, we are unaware of any suggestion that there is any lesser definition. As regards placing a duty on the NCC to promote the enjoyment by the public of all wildlife, I can only say that there are occasions on which such a requirement would be in direct conflict with the needs of nature conservation, which must come first. Furthermore, the Government and the NCC are quite satisfied that their present terms of reference enable them to promote the enjoyment of the public of wildlife where this is appropriate and to the extent that their resources allow. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the principle of his amendment is well understood and applied, and that his amendment is not only unnecessary but could prove an embarrassment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, occasions when Government Ministers get up and say that amendments are both unnecessary and then do something always seem to me to herald replies of the greatest weakness and greatest suspicion. How can something be both unnecessary (because the argument is that it is already in legislation) and then have all sorts of catastrophic results for the poor Nature Conservancy Council, including causing them great embarrassment? More seriously, I think that it is helpful to have what the noble Earl has said about the definition of nature conservation on the record, for I do not think that that has been universally accepted among those involved throughout the nature conservancies and the history of the Nature Conservancy Council. So I shall look at what the noble Earl said with great care.
During the passage of this Bill the Nature Conservancy Council have caused the Government so much embarrassment by the actual statistics they have produced that I certainly do not want to cause any embarrassment to the council. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Provisions with respect to the Countryside Commission]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Maybray-King). My Lords, I am advised that if Amendment No. 173H is agreed to I cannot put Amendment No. 173J to the House.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 173H:
Page 33, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, with this amendment I should like to discuss Amendment No. 173Q. The Government have already accepted an earlier amendment putting power

547
to create marine reserves into the Bill. The words referred to are now unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173J not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173K:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Water Act 1973
. The Water Act 1973 is amended as follows—
After subsection (3) of section 3 the following subsection shall be inserted—
"( ) Members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be persons who appear to him to be familiar with the need to conserve the natural beauty and wildlife of the authority's area.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a very helpful letter which the noble Earl wrote to me on 3rd March about a similar amendment that I moved in Committee, he said among other things that on Report he would explain the point that he made in the letter further,
"when I hope to provide an effective, non-statutory commitment to meet the spirit of the amendment".
I have tabled the amendment again to give the noble Earl the opportunity of doing that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when a similar amendment was discussed in Committee we undertook to consider whether it would be useful to have one or two people with expertise on nature conservation on each of the water authorities. The Government fully recognise the importance and relevance of wildlife and landscape conservation to the work of water authorities, and it is our aim to achieve a reasonable balance of interests in the membership of each authority. To some extent, however, the overall size of the water authorities' membership, which varies considerably between authorities, imposes a constraint. For example, although the Secretary of State appoints 17 members to the Thames Water Authority, which is the largest, to the smaller ones, for instance the South-West and Wessex, he appoints only four. This illustrates how difficult it would be to meet a requirement that a particular interest will always be represented on every water authority, whether it be the conservation of natural beauty and wildlife or some other, like the needs of industry, commerce or recreation. That is why we do not think it would be right to introduce a statutory commitment.
I can, however, assure noble Lords that we are prepared to use our best endeavours to ensure that the larger water authorities have at least one member with experience of wildlife and conservation, and I hope that this will indicate that we will act in the spirit of the amendment as far as we reasonably can.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that information. I think that one might be rather niggardly on some of the larger water authorities. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the enormous concern that the activities of some water authorities have generated in the past and, more importantly perhaps, the extent to which a number of water authorities are now getting together with nature conservation interests, agreeing procedures for prior
548
consultation, agreeing to have regular meetings with nature conservation interests in the areas covered by the water authority; and the great help that it would be to water authorities in those procedures were they to have one or two members who had some personal knowledge of nature conservation, and the other interests—the amenity of the countryside and recreation in the countryside interests—with which water authorities must be conversant and deal. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the assurance he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 [Provisions with respect to the Countryside Commission]:
[Amendment No. 173 KA not moved].
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 173KB:
Page 77, line 34, leave out from ("include") to the end of line 39 and insert—

("(a) a statement of the action taken by the Commission to promote the enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public who are disabled; and

(b) a record of all questions with which the Commission have been concerned during that year and which appear to the Commission to be of general public interest, indicating the purport of any representations or recommendations made by the Commission with respect thereto, and the conclusions (if any) reached thereon.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment last week when I moved Amendment No. 173YA. I think that the principle was accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Powers of entry]:
[Amendments Nos. 1731, and 173M not moved.]
5.1 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173N:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Report by Secretary of State
. The Secretaries of State shall submit to Parliament each year a report on the way decisions or actions by Ministers and public bodies have been modified by the duties imposed by section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and section 26 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty, amenity, wild flora, fauna, geological and physiographic features of the countryside.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment that we discussed at Committee stage. It involves Section 11 of the Countryside Act which we were discussing a few amendments ago. Once again the noble Earl kindly wrote me a full letter, in this case about the Government's thinking on this. He suggested a number of reasons why he did not think it would be desirable for a report to be made to Parliament about the implementation of Section 11. Section 11 places a duty on Ministers and public bodies to take into account the interests of nature conservation and landscape interest in the exercise of their functions.
It is one of those enormously well-meant but incredibly general duties which are placed on Ministers and public bodies from which I am afraid it is difficult to see any positive result. I have no doubt that Ministers

549
and public bodies are constantly aware of the duties imposed on them by Section 11—have it forever in front of them, and take it fully into account in all the decisions they make. Although if that were actually the case, I must say I would personally be somewhat surprised. Nevertheless, even if that is the case that is not the impression that the general public have of the efficacy of Section 11. On the contrary, it is widely regarded as being of no practical use whatsoever.
It is unfortunate if one of the major planks of the statutory powers which nature conservationists and those interested in the landscape of the country have is simply considered to be of no value because nobody takes any notice of it. It does not do much for the law of this country, and certainly it does not say much for the attention that Ministers and officials of public bodies pay to Acts of Parliament. There was a committee set up by the last Government composed entirely of senior civil servants and representatives of the statutory agencies like the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council which looked at a wide range of issues in the countryside, and with most of whose conclusions this Government, and I think most other people who looked at it, disagreed. But just because a number of their conclusions were not accepted and the committee was subsequently disbanded by the Government, it would be unfair to those concerned to say that everything they suggested was of little value, and that there were not some recommendations which could be implemented.
One of the recommendations they made was that there should be some annual reporting to Parliament on the implementation of Section 11. Whatever other arguments may be brought forward against this amendment, it clearly cannot be that any particular department has overwhelming objections to it because the officials representing all the departments that might be interested sat on this committee and they all agreed that this was a practical, realistic, and indeed sensible proposition to put forward in a public document for the public and Ministers to consider. Therefore, I hope there are no practical objections to it.
I changed the amendment slightly to meet one of the arguments against it which the noble Earl put in his letter, which was that Section 11 was aimed at Ministers and public bodies, and logically therefore the requirement would have to extend to all Ministers, and indeed nationalised industries whose activities were likely to impinge on the countryside. I have now asked that Secretaries of State—that would be the Secretaries of State for the Environment, and for Wales and Scotland—report on the way that actions and decisions by Ministers and public bodies in general have been modified by Section 11.
The noble Earl suggested that if this were introduced for Section 11 a similar requirement would be needed in respect of Section 37, which calls on every Minister to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, and the economic and social interests of rural areas. All I can say to that is, "Hear, hear"! I hope it does. It would be an excellent thing for somebody who lives in a rural area and farms. I do not think anybody pays nearly enough attention to the problems of rural areas, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be a good thing if Ministers and public bodies had to tell us what
550
account they had taken of the social and economic needs of agriculture and rural areas in general. If that were the case, maybe we would not have had some of the proposals that we have had from this Government which would have affected rural Post Offices, and in the Budget which would severely affect everybody living in rural areas, and particularly the agricultural industry. I am all for Ministers having to pay a lot more attention to both Section 37 and Section 11. If this amendment were passed and they had to do both, it would be an excellent thing. I see that as a strong argument in favour of the amendment.
The next argument seems to be that reports to Parliament are not of great use. That is an argument that Ministers and officials use, but it is not an argument which should be acceptable to Parliament. Reports to Parliament are of enormous value to Parliament. They may be a difficulty and an embarrassment to Ministers, and it may be a chore for civil servants to have to write the reports, and it may even be a bit difficult for everyone to continue to ignore Section 11, or indeed Section 37 of the Countryside Act to the extent which I have a feeling they do at the moment, if they know they are going to have to report to Parliament on steps they have taken to modify their actions in the light of those sections.
Reports to Parliament give all of us, parliamentarians and indeed all the general public, the opportunity to see what Ministers have actually been doing. It gives us an opportunity to ask intelligent questions about the actions they have taken, and to complain about them. It does not seem to me that it should be for Ministers to decide whether these reports are useful. It should be for Parliament and the public to decide, because it is in the wider public interest that such reports are produced not for the comfort and benefit of Government Ministers. Although, of course, if they have taken some worthwhile actions, such a report gives them an excellent opportunity to blow their own trumpet, which I am sure no Minister would ever want to turn down.
The final argument I can see being given against this amendment is that it would be an onerous burden because in endless ways, endless decisions are going to be significantly modified by Section 11 of the Countryside Act. I do not believe for a moment that that is true. In any event, I would expect that such an annual report would cover major decisions that have been modified by Section 11. It would not cover the generality of small, routine decisions and it would be quite clear to Ministers what things they should put in the report and what things really were not worth troubling Parliament with. That would be the case on any report that anybody wrote about their actions under a particular Act of Parliament. I hope I have managed to demolish the noble Earl's brief in response to this amendment and that it will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I support the amendment, my Lords. It is always thought impossible to make a report about anything which has not been required traditionally. On the other hand, extraordinary changes are going on as the result of legislation and for the Secretaries of State concerned to report to Parliament once a year on what is happening would

551
be an invaluable effort for them; it would make them much more aware of what their departments were doing, it would be very useful to Parliament, as my noble friend said, and I therefore hope we will not get one of those blank negatives which we expect from the Minister.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the danger of writing to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with one's argument is that one gets the argument thrown back along with the answers as well. I recognise that the amendment is a sincere attempt to overcome the objection which I explained in Committee. The proposed annual report to Parliament by the Secretaries of State would cover not just their own activities but those of other Ministers and all public bodies. While the earlier amendment had less point, because the Secretaries of State are themselves accountable to Parliament, this one would impose a burden on the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office. It would be necessary for them to monitor the activities of all public bodies throughout the course of the year in order to provide an annual report on what has or has not happened because of the provisions of Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967.
I acknowledge that the Countryside Review Committee considered there might be merit in introducing arguments to ensure accountability under Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968. This was a theme raised first in their initial paper The Countryside—Problems and Policies, published in 1976, which the committee returned to in their final Discussion paper No. 4, Conservation and the Countryside—Problems and Policies. The latter was published in 1979 and mooted the possibility of an annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State. But the committee recognised that that was not the only way, and I must emphasise that the Countryside Review Committee was an unusual body. Although composed of public servants, they served in a personal capacity and the committee's papers were published on an exploratory basis. Publication did not commit individual members of the committee or their parent bodies and, in particular, they did not commit Ministers. That was made clear in a preface to each of the discussion papers.
The duty laid on Ministers and public bodies by Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 is a most important one, and both I and my colleagues stand by our determination that it must never be overlooked. But it is the Government's view that formalisation of this aspect of decision-making by means of an annual report to Parliament is undesirable. It might help if I were to read out what the section says:
"In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment, every Minister, Government Department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
The Government believe that is a full and forthright statement on which to rest their case.
Lord Melchett: It is a full and forthright statement, my Lords, but the question is whether anybody takes any notice of it. The only way Parliament and the public can know whether anybody takes any notice of
552
it is if Ministers will tell us what they are doing about it, and the noble Earl will not; all he will tell us is what they are meant to do about it and what is already in legislation. I accept from him that the Government have a commitment to ensure that Section 11 will never be overlooked, in his words, and I assume that, to ensure that is the case, civil servants and Ministers at the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office monitor what is being done by other departments and public bodies with great care to ensure that Section 11 is not overlooked. That is what we want reported to Parliament—the outcome of that monitoring.
The noble Earl spoke as if the amendment would require that monitoring process to take place. If the noble Earl's department and the departments of his colleagues are doing their job properly, they must be doing that monitoring now. As we know, the committees within government, of both Ministers and officials, which determine everything that happens within government, will be taking this into account because the Department of the Environment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices will be represented on those committees. Section 11 will be thrown into the melting, pot of discussion on a wide range of issues whenever those departments feel it should be. What we want is an annual report saying when that happened and what action resulted from it.
Of course, if the departments of the noble Earl and his colleagues were not monitoring the provision properly, then the suspicions of everybody outside about the worthlessness of Section 11 would be justified, but I would not for a moment charge the noble Earl and his department or other Government departments with that degree of incompetence or laxity. Nevertheless, I believe it fair that Parliament should require a report so we can actually see they are doing their job rather than simply have the noble Earl's assurance for it, valuable though that is.
This is not a particularly controversial point. It is a point on which there has been a good deal of agreement on all sides and, as I pointed out, agreement by representatives of all Government departments which might be interested. I appreciate that civil servants do not commit Ministers or their departments. Nevertheless, I have not yet come across a committee composed of civil servants which did not reach a recommendation which would not in practice be able to be accepted by Ministers or their departments, and am sure that of all the recommendations they may make, this must be the least controversial, so I hope the House will accept the amendment.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 173N) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Amherst, E.

Beswick, L.

Ampthill, L.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Boothby, L.

Avebury, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bacon, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

553

Bruce of Donington, L.

Loudoun, C.

Chorley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Collison, L.

Melchett, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Noel-Baker, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Denington, B.

Peart, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fletcher, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Foot, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gaitskell, B.

St. Davids, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Segal, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Somers, L.

Gosford, E.

Stamp, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stone, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strauss, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Thurso, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Janner, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Wigoder, L.

Listowel, E.

Winterbottom, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Longford, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Inglewood, L.

Allerton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Alport, L.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mansfield, E.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cockfield, L.

Middleton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Daventry, V.

Mottistone, L.

de Clifford, L.

Moyne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles, V.

Northchurch, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Exeter, M.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Reigate, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Feversham, L.

Ridley, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Just, L.

Glasgow, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Savile, L.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Spens, L.

Hawke, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

554

Strathspey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Vickers, B.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Terrington, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Teviot, L.

Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wise, L.

Trumpington, B.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 40 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendment No. 173P not moved.]
5.26 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 173Q:
Page 34, leave out lines 17 and 18.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has asked me to act in his absence. He spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 163H. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 173R and 173S not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SZA:
Leave out Clause 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment brings us right to the very end of Part II of the Bill. I do not intend to press the leaving out of Clause 40, but I wish to raise with the noble Earl—I have given him notice of this—the question of the term "sites of special scientific interest". Your Lordships will remember that we had a brief discussion about this point at the Committee stage, and I think that all of us agreed that the term "sites of special scientific interest" is a terrible mouthful at the best of times, and "SSSIs" is even worse, especially if one is trying to go quickly, late at night, after dinner. At Committee stage, when I moved an amendment to this effect, it seemed desirable that the term should be changed.
I have had long discussion with those authorities in your Lordships' House who are experts in these matters about how I could change the term. Although the term "sites of special scientific interest" has been very widely used in our debates, it appears nowhere in the text of this Bill, nor any Act of Parliament. It appears in a sidenote to the 1949 Act, I think, and in amendments to this Bill. One cannot by way of amendment amend a sidenote. On page 24 of the Bill, the sidenote in the left-hand margin, alongside Clause 27 states:
"Orders designating certain areas of special scientific interest".
Your Lordships will notice that that sidenote refers to "areas", whereas they are actually called "sites". I am told that this is simply a decision of the draftsman, or possibly not even that, but rather a case of the Government telling the draftsman what to call clauses.
So my message to the noble Earl is, first, get rid of this terrible acronym, and mouthful, simply by issuing an instruction to the effect that another term should be used. Thus, when the Bill is being reprinted, without an amendment having been made in your Lordships' House, without in fact any noble Lord being able to move an amendment, even if he so desired—and I certainly

555
did—the term can be changed, as if by a miracle. The noble Earl holds this enormous power in the palm of his hand, and I very much hope that now that he is aware of that power he will use it. Even if the Government cannot finally decide what they would like to call the sites, they can at least decide that they should be called not "areas of special scientific interest", but something else. In deference to my noble friend Lady White, who raised this problem at the Committee stage, I should like to suggest that they be called "wildlife conservations areas" or "geological conservation areas". I realise that that would involve having two terms, but the sites are quite widely known as the "biological SSSIs" and the "geological SSSIs". We would greatly simplify matters if we could get rid of that distinction by calling the two sets of areas different things.
In our debates in your Lordships' House on Part II of the Bill we have in fact talked about biological SSSIs, the rate of destruction of biological SSSIs and so on. So it seems to me that it would be a valuable simplication to have two alternative names depending on whether the site or the area has been designated for its wildlife interest or for its geological interest; and I hope that, without the noble Earl needing to do anything more, when the Bill is reprinted we shall see in the margin on page 24, "Orders designating certain wildlife conservation areas or geological conservation areas". If they cannot accept this now, I hope that the Government will work away behind the scenes to make sure that this important change is made before the Bill is reprinted after our deliberations today. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course we go along with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the incompatibility of the words "special scientific interest" late at night and a term which produces no beauty at all when one wants to try to get a term which conjures up what it really means. I would go along with what the noble Lord has said. I should like to suggest myself that perhaps one might have them called "habitat protection sites" and "geological protection sites", as yet another alternative. I have also had put before me "areas of wildlife importance" and "areas of geological importance". We shall look at all these and see which we think is best. One slight trouble about the phrase "a wildlife conservation area" is that it becomes "a WC area", and I am not quite sure whether or not people will pick that up. Having said that, I am sure that noble Lords will realise that the Government are giving it thought and are moving along the same lines as the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I had hoped that it would be called a WCA, not a WC, because that is what it would be—a wildlife conservation area. There is one other point I should have made in introducing these remarks and did not, but of which I think the noble Earl is aware, and that is that the rubric to Clause 27 does not refer to the areas which are covered by orders under Clause 27. If one reads it, it says, "Orders designating certain"—that is, orders designating some—of the sites of special scientific interest. So the terminology applies to all
556
these sites although Clause 27, of course, will apply only to very few. So the terminology used in the rubric to Clause 27 is the terminology which will apply to the total number of what are currently sites of special scientific interest. In those circumstances, I am not sure that protection is right, because as we all know, I hope, at the end of our debates on Part II the one thing that the sites of special scientific interest are not is protected against anything. A few of them may have some protection for 12 months as a result of Clause 27, but none of the rest is protected.
It may be that a misleading title will be helpful to the nature conservation cause, but I think I would prefer to have them not misleadingly titled; and I dare say that that would be a view which farmers and landowners might share, though I do not know. But I am grateful to the noble Earl for considering this. I hope we might get something else in before the Bill is reprinted, before it leaves your Lordships' House, in any event, so if we do not do it by whenever the Bill is reprinted some time this week it can at least be done after Third Reading; and I hope the Government now have enough solid suggestions to enable them to come to some conclusion. I look forward to seeing what it will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Duty to keep definitive map and statement under continuous review]:
5.35 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SA:
Page 34, line 37, after second ("to") insert ("subsection (1A) of this section and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which we discussed at Committee stage; and, as noble Lords will see in the case of both this amendment and of a number of others to which my name is put down, there has been an attempt, in order to reduce the amount of time we spend on Part III of the Bill and to ensure that we finish at a reasonable hour tonight, to consolidate various of the amendments which were discussed at Committee stage and to reduce the number brought back at Report. To that end my noble friend Lord Fletcher, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, have combined on a number of amendments, and in one or two cases there has been a slightly different combination; but that is the purpose behind this. There was some discussion and an attempt to reduce the number of amendments brought back at Report stage.
This was an amendment which the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, moved at the Committee stage, and the two amendments—I should like to speak to the following amendment, No. 173SB, as well—aim to deal with an important matter, but a matter of drafting. Clause 41(1) and Clause 49(1) define the words, "definitive map" and "statement" as being either, first, the current definitive or revised definitive map and statement or, second, where there is no definitive map and statement, the map and statement prepared under Clause 43(2).
The worry of those of us who have our names to this

557
amendment is that the definition means that orders made under Part III to modify the map and statement will not legally form part of the map and statement unless and until a new map is prepared; and that will be prepared under Clause 45(2). So there would be a definitive map and statement and then a number of orders made to change it, to modify it, but they, it appears, will not be legally part of the map under the definitions in the Bill. Clause 45(2), which is the clause under which the new one will finally be prepared—and I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, if he is finding this difficult to follow, because I certainly am—makes reference to the map and statement as modified by orders. In other words, when the new one is finally prepared and becomes a definitive map it is a map as modified by orders, which lends support to the view—and I have some legal advice which says that this is a tenable view—that the orders themselves are not part of the definitive map until the Clause 45 procedure is gone through and a new one is produced.
These amendments do not try to change any existing intention in the Bill at all. What they do try to do is put right the submission by making it clear that orders will legally form part of the map and statement as soon as they take effect. This applies with equal force on those who want to close or divert footpaths and those who want to have them established, or those who want to raise or lower a right of way; but it really does seem a bit ridiculous that, once one has gone to all the trouble of getting an order and getting it agreed, it should not then definitely form part of the definitive map and statement—and the amendment simply ensures that that would happen.
As I say, despite the Government's view, which they expressed at Committee stage, that this is in fact what happens under the Bill, my legal advice is that it is not the case and that in fact the court, in looking at the wording of the Bill, and particularly in view of what Clause 45 says, would probably take the view that these orders do not form part of the definitive map and statement until the Clause 45(2) procedure is gone through. It is a minor clarification but an extremely important one if I am right and the Government are wrong. In any event, it seems sensible, given the amount of effort put into making orders, to make absolutely certain that they legally become part of the map once they are finalised, and I hope this will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I would simply say that so far as I know there is nothing between the Government and ourselves as to the intention; but if this has been looked at rather carefully by a solicitor and a barrister—and I think there has been other legal advice—and that is the way they read it, there surely is a clear case, whether or not the Government think it is covered, to make the situation utterly clear. I know that the objection sometimes raised against doing this is that it is repetitive, but there is absolutely no excuse for not making a Bill as clear as it can be.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, indicated, these amendments are similar to those tabled in Committee by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, in as much as they would ensure that changes
558
to definitive maps and statements embodied in orders are subject to the provisions of Clause 44 regarding conclusive evidential effect of definitive maps and statements. I said, in connection with the noble Lady's amendments, that we felt that they were not necessary. Having gone round the track again, we still feel that that is the position. I recognise the wish to have it clear so that there should be no misunderstanding. I understand that that is the sole objective of the amendment. Our legal advice is that it is covered in the Bill already, as I have said before. I could go over my note here and restate the arguments, but there does not seem to be much point in doing that. It is a question of whether or not the legal opinion to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, refers is the right one or whether the advice that I am given is right. It is a question of fact. I am assured that the concern expressed need not be felt. For that reason we do not wish to accept the amendment.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not be satisfied with that reply. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is a question of fact. He also said that the amendment is not necessary. It is not a question of whether it is necessary but a question of whether it is desirable. It may or may not be necessary, but it is surely in the interests of clarity that the position be made abundantly clear. There cannot be any valid objection to the amendment. There may be a difference of opinion between legal advisers as to whether it is necessary or not, but that does not conclude the matter. If an amendment of this nature is put forward in the interests of clarification, and if it is argued, as my noble friend has argued, that it is desirable to have it, surely the Government should have the courtesy to accept it. It cannot do any harm to accept it and I invite your Lordships to express the view that the Minister's reply is thoroughly disappointing.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I was very disappointed in what the Minister said. I have always understood that the one essential of good drafting is certainty. If there is a difference of opinion between the Minister's advisers, on the one hand, and the advisers who have helped us, on the other hand, then the safe course of action is to take the step recommended in this amendment and incorporate the words in the clause. May ask the Minister this? If that is done, will there be any difficulty in the courts that he can foresee on the construction of the Bill by reason of the addition of those words? If he says "No" to that question, then there can be no objection to having the words there. But there can be the advantage that the Act must be construed not only by lawyers but by people like ramblers who are not necessarily legal experts but who want the words in the Bill to mean what they appear to mean.
If the definitive map and statement is not to include the additional words suggested in this amendment, then most people reading it would think that those orders did not form part of the definitive map and statement. The noble Lord says that they do, but the Bill does not say that. This Bill has to be read by many people who are not legal experts. There is a dispute which could go wrong if the Minister's advice is incorrect,

559
and lead to some expensive litigation in the courts as to the exact meaning of this term—and this is something which could easily be put right if the amendment is accepted. Secondly, and more importantly, this Bill affects a large number of people who enjoy the countryside. They want to be able to read the Bill and to understand it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with h leave, perhaps I will now give the detail that I was trying to avoid having to do before, in that the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, felt that my response was less than satiafactory. The fact is that Clause 41(2) states categorically that authorities
"shall by order make such modifications to the definitive map and statement as appear to them to be requisite".
The only possible construction that can be placed on this provision is that the definitive map and statement is modified immediately the order is made and takes effect. That there may be a hiatus between the order taking effect and the information it contains actually being shown in the definitive map and statement does not undermine that fact. The situation whereby definitive maps and statements will not in practice reflect the actual effect of orders immediately is recognised by the fact that the Bill includes a specific provision—Clause 45(2)—which enables authorities periodically to reproduce a copy of the "modified map and statement" which shows the actual changes embodied in orders. The Bill was also amended in Committee to ensure that until the "modified map and statement" is reproduced copies of orders are placed on deposit for public inspection together with the map and statement they modify.
Despite what was said, I am content that the Bill's provisions do not require additional clarification. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I could not accept that as an argument. If you always took account of that, where would you he in the end?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, you would be with clear, concise and unarguable legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did not answer the question that Lord Avebury asked. That question was: if this amendment were put into the Bill, would it lead to any problems with interpretation? The noble Lord's quotation from Clause 45(2) does lead to a problem. It does not seem to be clear to me, reading it as somebody who is not a lawyer. The legal advice (as my noble friend has said, and as was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth) was given to a consortium of all the interests involved in public rights of way. The advice by solicitors and counsel has been that the Bill is not clear and that it is possible that all the process of order-making will he gone through, and that that will not be taken to alter the definitive map until the procedures in Clause 45(2) are gone through. It would be a disaster if that were the case. Is it a risk worth running? I cannot understand why the noble Lord wants to run it. I accept that he has clear legal advice, on the one hand and the people behind the amendment have clear legal advice.
It is not the sensible and reasonable thing to do for Parliament to put the provision beyond doubt by
560
including the amendment? Unless the noble Lord can tell us that the amendment will do harm, I cannot see why the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the House will allow me to speak again, I think you can take this argument all ways. You can say that this will do no harm, but my advice is that it is not necessary. But the one point that I make (and I have said this on all the Bills I have dealt with) is that we want the best and clearest Bill we can get. If it is felt that there may be a difficulty of the kind referred to, and it is felt that it is not clear, I will undertake to take the point back and look at it and discuss it again with the legal advisers. Should the situation be as the noble Lord has said, we will have no hesitation in making a change. However, I think at this moment that I would be no more justified in accepting that what the noble Lord has said is right, so far as his legal advice is concerned, than I would be in turning down the advice by my legal advisers. But I accept there may be a point and we will look at it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if that were treated as an intervention in my speech so that both the noble Lord and I will not be too seriously out of order. It is not a point of substance. We agree on what we want to achieve. It seems silly on an important point to leave it as drafted in the Bill with lawyers disagreeing with each other over the interpretation. That will end up in court and could go either way. The noble Lord said he will look at it again. I am grateful. It may be possible for the lawyer who has advised us to get in touch with the lawyer who advised the noble Lord, and to let them sort it out. That might be quicker and simpler, if not cheaper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173SB not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 173SC is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 173SCA.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SC:
Page 36, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert—
("(ii) that a highway shown in the map and statement as a footpath ought to be there shown as a bridleway or byway open to all traffic or that a highway shown in the map and statement as a bridleway ought to be there shown as a byway open to all traffic;
(d) the discovery by the authority of evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt—

(i) that a highway shown in the map and statement as a byway open to all traffic ought to be there shown as a bridleway or footpath, or that a highway shown in the map and statement as a road used as a public path or bridleway ought to be there shown as a footpath;

(ii) that there is no public right of way over land shown in the map and statement as a highway of any description, or any other particulars contained in the map and statement require modification.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also an amendment which we dealt with at the Committee stage. Its effect would be to require a higher standard

561
of proof before an order is made to downgrade or delete a right of way already shown on the definitive map than is required before an order is made to add or upgrade a path. It has been the case since the introduction of the definitive map legislation in 1949 that surveying authorities should take steps to include rights of way on drafts of maps wherever, in their opinion, such rights are reasonably alleged to subsist; in other words, where on balance they believe that the evidence indicates the existence of public rights.
In extending this principle to the making by authorities of orders to downgrade or to delete a way already shown on the map, the Bill has raised some very real fears. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it has seriously upset the balance which has existed since 1949 between those interested in maintaining public rights of way and those interested in ensuring that there should not be too many public rights of way or that, where there is not a very strong case, they should be taken off the list. There has been a balance. Although it has led to a large number of appeals that the Department of the Environment have not been able to deal with as speedily as everyone wished, nevertheless that balance seemed to be a fair and reasonable one. This provision upsets that balance.
What those interested in the use of public rights fear is that the definitive nature of the definitive map will be undermined and that many orders will be made to delete or downgrade ways which are already shown on the map. The whole point as I understood it (as something of a non-expert in this field) is that the definitive map should, so far as possible, be regarded as definitive. I always thought for myself, speaking as a rambler and a farmer, it was rather good that when the ordnance maps came out—the most recent series—we all knew that the public rights of way marked on them were more or less definitive. I know there were some changes in both directions, but the general feeling was that at last we had something which was at least intended to be definitive. This would drive, if not a coach and horses at least a small pony and trap through that definitive nature of the definitive map.
My Lords, if the amendment is accepted it will not mean that orders to downgrade rights of way cannot be made but merely that before making such an order the authority must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence does not justify downgrading or deletion. There is nothing in the amendment—and I say this to noble Lords opposite in particular, who I know are listening with great care—which prevents the correction of mistakes on the definitive map. I know that both sides feel that there have been some mistakes. That is where it can be shown quite clearly—in other words, beyond reasonable doubt—that mistakes have been made.
Why should there be a distinction (which is what this amendment would achieve) between proposals to upgrade rights of way and proposals to downgrade them? Is that fair? I think that it is, for this reason. Where a proposal is put forward to put a new right of way on a map or to upgrade a right of way from a public footpath to a bridleway or whatever, the individuals affected, the owner and the occupier, will personally have to be served with a notice that this is intended and will personally have every opportunity
562
to object and to present a case against this.
Where a proposal is made to downgrade a path, all those that use it are not served with a notice personally that that is going to happen. All that happens at the moment is that there will be an advertisement in a local newspaper. That might be all right if everybody living locally read the local newspaper and they were the only people who might happen to use the path, but I do not believe that either of those facts is the case. There will be many people who do not read local newspapers—newspapers are very expensive nowadays. Secondly, many people from outside that immediate area will possibly use the path and will wish to object if it is downgraded.
In other words, there is not, by the nature of things, exact equality between the two interests involved. The landowner's and farmer's interest is very particular and important. They get a personal notice when a change is going to be made. The public interest, represented by the users, is much more diffuse and may be spread over the whole country in the case of some paths. It will not be particular to certain individuals, and they will not have notices served on them personally; it will simply be a notice in a local paper.
I do not think that it can be claimed that these two interests should be treated in exactly the same way; otherwise, it would be argued that farmers and landowners could rely on an advertisement in the local paper just as well as public path users. I would not accept that argument. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not suggest that although that applies there should be the same evidence for both sides, which this amendment would change. I hope that explains the amendment as clearly as possible and that the Government will accept that the position as it was since 1949 should continue to apply. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, proof of right of way often depends on local knowledge going back a long way. In a number of cases the people who would be able to provide the information that that right of way really was there are likely to be dead. That is one reason why one has to be more careful in abolishing a right of way than in establishing one. The other aspect was the thinking for years and years—until this Bill came up—that it was res ajudicata, which means that the matter has already been decided and that only if there is good reason should it be opened up again. If one does not have that idea one can imagine that landowners or others might frequently raise this at intervals. This would be a great nuisance and would mean that those who were interested in a right of way would no doubt have to spend a lot of money in fighting the case over and over again. I hope that the Minister will once again look at this very reasonable amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was particularly plausible today, which makes me very suspicious of him. He did, in his own words, try to drive a cart and horses, and then he realised that he should not have used those words because that is exactly what this amendment, as I see it tries to do. It is what I have marked in my brief as "all up and no down". It is easy enough to make better rights of way—that is, footpaths into bridleways and bridleways into byways open to all

563
traffic—but we are not allowed the same procedure going downwards. I am afraid that I cannot accept his very plausible (and I admire him for it) argument why it should be like that. I hope that the Government will resist it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in the first place, the amendment would prevent the upgrading of a road used as a public path to a byway open to all traffic. I must confess to not understanding why the amendment should deal with RUPPS in the context of Clause 41 when Clause 42 provides for their re-classification. Be that as it may, I cannot accept the desirability of preventing upgrading to a byway if the evidence supports it. The amendment then requires that evidence of downgrading should put the matter beyond reasonable doubt. I find the application of the onus of proof appropriate to criminal matters curious and unsatisfactory. I cannot see why, if there is substantial evidence to support a proposal, the ordinary civil test, which requires that the evidence should put the matter beyond reasonable doubt, should not prevail. I think it would be wrong not to act if such evidence were available.
Finally, because I do not think there is anything further I want to add, the amendment seeks to prevent a RUPP—and what an unfortunate name that is—from being downgraded to a bridleway. I cannot see any justification for the proposal unless there is evidence of the non-existence of bridleway rights. However, I would point out again that it is really out of place to deal with RUPPs in Clause 41 when Clause 42 deals with them. As always, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but I think, as he said, that this is perhaps not the most important part of the Bill. I do not think we can accept the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it is not the most important part of the Bill, and I daresay we would all wish to get on to that. This provision was in the previous legislation and has worked perfectly well, so far as I am aware. Indeed, I think it must have worked perfectly well so far as the Government were aware, because they did not mention the possibility of changing it in any of their consultation papers. This was a change, as I understand it, which was sprung on those affected in the Bill when it first appeared. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, says that the more plausible I am the more suspicious he gets. I just wish that occasionally he would listen to the arguments, and, if they are good arguments, that he would be capable of accepting them without this deeply suspicious nature, which I must say is not characteristic of most farmers most of the time. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will be giving us all a very bad image.
This amendment is not one that I want to press. I do not think the Government have behaved in a very straightforward way over this. If they had really thought it was unsatisfactory or that there were problems, they would have mentioned it in their consultation papers. It has been brought up very much at the last minute and I am sure it is something that Members in another place will want to pursue, because, if it has worked perfectly well for all those years since 1949 and the Government saw no need to
564
consult about any changes, it does not seem to me fair to make the change in the Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 173SCA:
Page 36, line 4, after ("description") insert ("except that nothing in this section shall cause an authority to show as a byway open to all traffic a highway formerly shown as a road used as a public path and reclassified as a bridleway or footpath in a review under Part III of the Countryside Act 1968").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 173SCC and 173SCE. These amendments deal with the specific question of reclassifying roads used as public paths and they are a vital part in the broader question of vehicles, particularly motor-bikes, on paths. I recollect that if there was one matter upon which your Lordships appeared to display some unanimity at Committee stage it was my noble friend's remark at col. 627 on 17th February that definitive maps of public paths are essentially,
"for the benefit of people on foot or on horseback"—
that is to say, rather than for the benefit of people who are motor-cyclists or other off-road vehicle users.
I remain concerned about the position because I think the Bill gives greater scope to motor-cyclists to gain further access to public paths, which could be a problem for owners, occupiers and other users of paths. As an instance, I would mention that currently on the reclassification under the 1968 Act of a road used as a public path, where the way is not really suitable for vehicular traffic the present position in the majority of cases is that it will be reclassified as a bridleway. In future, however, where vehicle rights are proven, it appears that it will be much more difficult for the highway authority to classify as a bridleway where vehicular use is obviously pretty unsuitable. That remains a problem, as I say.
At this stage I do not want to go too deeply into the arguments because they could go on for a long time, but I want to try to elicit answers to the following points, which are causing me some anxiety. First, is it correct that roads used as public paths which were downgraded to bridleways as unsuitable did not have vehicular rights extinguished? Secondly, can vehicles use such bridleways now? Thirdly, could they do so if this Bill is passed as it now stands?
If I may run through the amendments as briefly as I can, No. 173SCC puts back into the Bill the idea of taking account of roads used as public paths and the suitability for vehicles before a track is shown as a byway open to all traffic. No. 173SCA removes from local authorities the obligation to reclassify for a second time those roads used as public paths which have already been downgraded as unsuitable despite ancient carriage use. The reason for anxiety over this is the cost and delay involved in going through all this again, which I feel will be only too likely in a number of cases. I still think more thought is required as to whether it is really justified to go through this long exercise once more. I do not believe there is all that much opposition to that particular amendment from footpath groups.
In connection with Amendment No. 173SCA, in the

565
second line it says:
"nothing in this section shall cause an authority to show".
I should be happy to accept the word "require" rather than the word "cause", if that makes it easier.
The third amendment, No. 173SCE, explores the precise status of downgrading under the 1968 Countryside Act. It is believed, I think also by Government, that due to drafting deficiencies, when a road used as a public path with vehicular rights was downgraded to a bridleway the vehicular rights were not actually extinguished. Therefore, much of the work put in by county councils, the Department of the Environment and many individuals could well be wasted unless such a provision is introduced. I merely counsel the virtue of getting a decision of some finality, if possible, on this.
I should like to say a word also about the discretion that authorities have when reclassifying roads used as public paths. Previously suitability-of-the-way provisions gave a highway authority a further opportunity if they did not want to reclassify an unsuitable track as a byway. However, my noble friend said that under the Bill local authorities would nevertheless have sufficient discretion. I should like just to make the comment that it seems to me it will appear unfair to claimants—and in this case claimants might well be motor-cyclists—for the local authority to have received good evidence that a RUPP had vehicular rights over it but then not to have acted upon that evidence. The question arises: if the highway authority did that, could the claimant go to court for a writ of mandamus because the highway authority had refused to reclassify as a byway a road used as a public path? It is important to ask very precisely about this point. I do not think that we should allow the possibility of such court actions arising.
In this connection, the 1968 Act has led to 12 years of contention on this point and it would seem a great pity not to try to avoid the problem now. I am very anxious that my noble friend should find it possible to take back these amendments and have a good look at them. I am sure that they are not perfect, but I hope that he now understands what I am anxious to try to achieve. I believe that there is considerable support for some of them and I hope, therefore, that he will be able to yield us something. Otherwise, in certain cases, I shall feel obliged to press them. My Lords, I beg to move.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, for myself I am not quite clear why the noble Lord is taking these three amendments together, but, certainly, I find great difficulties with Amendments Nos. 173SCA and 173SCC. The proposal in No. 173SCC, which I think is taken from a proposal that was put forward to the Countryside Act, seems to me to be far too subjective to make good law. I am not sure that it would be fair in Amendment No. 173SCA to prevent a surveying authority from taking account of a period of 20 years' use by motor vehicles of something which was reclassified as a footpath or bridleway. That seems to me to be a little excessive.
But as regards Amendment No. 173SCE—that is the later of the three amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken—I must say that I have a great deal more sympathy. As I understand it, that amendment
566
makes clear that where a way formerly shown as a road used as a public path has been reclassified as a bridleway or footpath, any vehicular rights which may have existed have now been extinguished. In other words, when something is reclassified, that is that. The vehicular rights, if it is reclassified from a RUPP to a bridleway or footpath, are extinguished and that should be that. As I understand it, that is what Parliament intended when it passed the 1968 Countryside Act. It seems to me a sensible and useful amendment and it is one which I would support, because if you have gone through all the business of reclassifying something, that should then be the end of the matter.
But on the previous amendments, I would say that the test in No. 173SCC is far too vague and I do not think it is fair for Parliament to legislate to ignore 20 years' continuous use by vehicles of a road. That seems to me to be going a bit far. If the noble Lord intends to press any of these amendments, I hope that he will wait and press the third one.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support two of these amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I shall certainly support No. 173SCE. I cannot see any objection at all to that. I do not quite understand the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to No. 173SCC. I understand that it may not be very good law and that it cannot therefore be accepted. But I should certainly like the Government to consider it very carefully and, before Third Reading, to put in something to achieve the same purpose.
What I am frightened of, as I said in Committee, is that if you are going to allow scrambler bicycles and motor-cycles on these paths, where there are children riding ponies—and it is especially children riding ponies that I am thinking of—it may be that, although the ordinary hiker can leap out of the way in time, there will be a lot of nasty accidents with such children. I hope that the Government can accept these amendments, although perhaps I should not be speaking on them without prior study. I hope that Amendment No. 173SCE will be accepted and I should also like to see a new form of No. 173SCC. I do not see why No. 173SCA should not be redrafted and accepted. I do not know what my noble friend will do, but I support the feeling behind these amendments.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I should like to make one small point to which I referred in Committee. If a road has been made into a bridleway, farmers will have put up gates and their agricultural practice will have become linked up with that. If, suddenly, the position is reversed the gates will have to be taken down.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I must confess that I find this group of amendments, taken together, somewhat puzzling. The first (No. 173SCA), if I have it right, seeks to give a local authority the discretion whether to upgrade to a byway open to all traffic a RUPP which has been downgraded to a footpath or bridleway. In saying this, I am assuming that the omission of the manuscript amendment changing the word "cause" to "require", which was tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, is an error. As I mentioned in Committee, local authorities already have this discretion. The difference between my noble

567
friend and myself is that he appears to think that authorities should not upgrade to byway in such cases, whereas I think that they should do so if there is evidence to justify that course.
The second amendment (No. 173SCC) seeks to include the suitability and hardship tests for reclassification of RUPPs which are found in the 1968 Act. I am against restoring those tests; they are based on subjective judgments and, not surprisingly, have been inconsistently applied. I respectfully submit that they have no place in an exercise whose purpose should be to establish facts. In addition, I regret to say that this amendment is inconsistent with the terms of Clause 42(3), which imposes a clear duty—not stated to be subject to any qualification—to reclassify as a byway where a public right of way for vehicular traffic has been shown to exist.
The third amendment (No. 173SCE) seems to be incompatible with No. 173SCA. This seeks to provide that where a RUPP has been downgraded on reclassification under the 1968 Act all vehicular rights are extinguished. If this were the case, then the question of upgrading to a byway could not arise as there would be no basis for so doing. But, in any event, as I have said, we are seeking to base the definitive map on a purely fact-finding process; a process which will tell us what rights of way exist, not what rights of way should exist. Furthermore, it would surely create an anomalous situation whereby vehicular rights were irrevocably lost in areas where special reviews had taken place, while they would continue to exist in those areas which had been slower off the mark. I should not have thought that that was a satisfactory situation.
My noble friend asked three specific questions. He asked: are vehicular rights extinguished? I submit that the answer is, no, they are not extinguished. He also asked whether byways can at present be used by vehicles following reclassification. The answer to that is, yes. The answer also is that under the Bill the position will be the same. I hope this is of some consolation to my noble friend.
I am most anxious to be helpful. I remember that when we discussed this subject during the Committee stage much concern was expressed about the effects of what was proposed. However, the more we have thought about it the more we have come to the conclusion that we have it just about right now. We shall carefully study what my noble friend has said—sometimes it is very difficult to follow detailed technical points as they are made—but unless it then appears that we might be able to make some move in the direction of my noble friend, I fear that we shall be unable to help him. Certainly we could not accept the amendments as they are now drafted.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply to Amendment No. 173SCA. I am not very clear as to why the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is concerned about 20 years of continuous use being ignored. This RUPP which has been reclassified has probably been reclassified as a bridleway over the last few years. The point I want to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench about it is this: If the highway authority have a very good reason for not wanting to have to reclassify an RUPP and to classify
568
it upwards to a byway from a bridleway because of ancient traffic use, it is probably because the highway authority will then have to have recourse to a road traffic order and all the further expense and delay thereby involved. However, at this stage I will withdraw Amendment No. 173SCA.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 173SCB:
Page 36, line 8, at end insert—
(" 4. (a) In the exercise of its duty under subsection (3) an authority shall disregard the expiration, in relation to any way in the area to which the map relates, of any period such that the enjoyment by the public right of way during that period raised a presumption that the way has been dedicated as a public path where such a presumption is based on the inclusion of the way in any definitive map and statement and evidence has been discovered that the way ought not to have been shown as a public right of way, or ought to have been shown as a highway of a different description.
(b) In the exercise of its duty under subsection (3) an authority shall have regard to such physical features of a way as may be evidence as to the existence of a public right of way, or the correct description of that way, notwithstanding that such features may have been removed or altered consequent upon the inclusion of the way in a definitive map and statement.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak to this amendment and also to Amendment No. 173SCD, both of which are similar to amendments which we put down during the Committee stage. May I speak also to an additional and more limited amendment, Amendment No. 174YB? The nub of the problem concerns prejudice and whether a landowner or occupier can bring evidence after a period of 20 years. We believe that we have the Government's support. My noble friend Lord Bellwin wrote to me and said:
"I would support the view that the decision on whether the path or way did or did not exist should turn on the consideration of evidence. In other words, evidence should always take precedence over the conclusive evidential effect of definitive maps, otherwise the ability of landowners to rectify errors which affected their interests would be severely limited".
During the Committee stage we received rather a different answer from the Front Bench. It was upsetting in so far as it implied that, while many users have constantly protested against definitive maps while the farming and landowning community have generally supported the Government in accepting definitive maps where they exist and have waited for their opportunity to bring evidence, farmers and landowners should thereby be penalised.
This leads directly to a question which still requires clarification. Must an individual with an apparent error remove physical features because the council or users consider them to be obstructions? To date, most farmers have allowed use pending an inquiry, but the rising potential for the expiration of 20 years while awaiting such a review must lead to considerable worry. It is unclear whether there is any way in which an individual can defend himself against the claim that although an error was made in the first place, 20 years have now expired. It is also unclear whether there is any difference between 20 years merely on the map and 20 years of use in consequence of mapping. Furthermore, it is unclear whether a sign inconsistent with

569
dedication which is erected by an individual as would normally protect him against a claim of dedication is of any use when there is already conclusive evidence due to a definite mapping error.
It must be remembered that many people have not yet had an opportunity to bring forward their evidence and have it heard. It is generally acknowledged, not least by the users in pressing the amendment that the Government have now accepted to Clause 44, that the original definitive mapping process was defective. Not least in these deficiencies was the fact that owners and occupiers were not informed of claims on their land. There is manifest injustice, in that the individual may be prejudiced because the authority has not carried out its supposedly quinquennial review.
The new Amendment No. 174YB is therefore a minimal suggestion. It asks only that farmers and landowners should be given a seven year period during which any prejudice arising from the evidential provisions on the maps should not apply. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, these amendments and the issues which they raise are extremely complex. I make no apologies for assuming, when they came up in Committee, that they were concerned to curtail the operation of the law on the presumed dedication of rights of way. I believe I am now correct in saying that my noble friend is concerned primarily to clarify the situation regarding the relationship between the conclusive evidential effect of the definitive map and statement and the presumed dedication of rights of way.
If this is the case, I think the following explanation will reassure him that farmers who seek, on the production of evidence, to have a way shown on the definitive map and statement down-graded or deleted will not be prejudiced or suffer injustice as a result of the conclusive evidential effect of the map and statement.
The essential feature of the evidential provisions is that the definitive map and statement is only conclusive evidence of the existence of the rights of way shown as at the relevant date accorded to the map and statement. If it were otherwise and the map was conclusive for all time we may as well terminate the discussion now since it would obviously be pointless to legislate for the revision of definitive maps. I am not aware of any suggestion that the evidential provisions operate to prevent the modification of definitive maps or that they take precedence over evidence which shows beyond doubt that the map is incorrect.
Similarly, a definitive map per se cannot in consequence of its conclusive evidential effect give rise to a presumption that a way of the description shown has been dedicated for all time. The sole factor that can give rise to a presumption of dedication of a public right of way is use of the way by the public without interruption over a long period.
In other words, if a landowner produces evidence to demontrate that a right of way shown on the definitive map in a particular status, which has never been used in accordance with that status, should be downgraded a potential objector would be unable to rely on the conclusive evidential effect of the definitive map to support his objection. The final decision on the status of the path would rest solely on the assessment of the evidence. I acknowledge that in the case of
570
reclassification of RUPPs we have made an exception to this general rule by providing that in the absence of evidence of vehicular or footpath rights the evidential effect of the definitive map should prevail to the extent that RUPPs should be reclassified as bridle-ways. We believe this is right. For a way to have been shown as a RUPP in the first place there must generally speaking have been some evidence of bridleway rights. Moreover, under the new criteria applicable to reclassification it seems a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of RUPPs will become byways open to all traffic on the basis of evidence of vehicular rights. In the particular situation highlighted by the second part of Amendment No. 173SCD evidence would presumably be available to show whether bridleway or footpath rights existed, otherwise the description on the definitive map and statement would be otiose.
As for my noble friend's third amendment, I am not sure that it achieves the desired effect because, as I said a moment ago, it is use, not the inclusion of a way in the definitive map and statement, that gives rise to a presumption of dedication.
I hope that my noble friend will feel, in all the circumstances, that the amendments are not necessary and that he will agree to withdraw them. In saying that, I recognise the complexity of the points which he has raised and the answer which I have given, but I hope he will feel able, certainly on considering carefully what has been said, to make such a decision.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before my noble friend decides what to say, I like quite a lot of what has been said, but I am not at all happy that that is what it says in the Bill. Unfortunately I have not moved on to the new Bill, I am afraid from laziness, and I still do not think that my noble friend has answered the question that I put to him at the Committee stage in column 639. However, I shall let my noble friend decide what he is going to do about it because that is what is worrying me and I am not sure that the Bill says what he has said or what I thought he said.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is complicated and I should be grateful if the House would give leave to my noble friend to answer this question: if a definitive map was made, say, in 1954 and for some reason it was wrongly mapped and had been used since 1954 until the present date, which is about 27 years, and one can now bring conclusive evidence that it was wrongly mapped, has the owner or occupier a right to appeal against the wrong mapping?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have thought that he would have the right to appeal, but clearly that is something that one would want to check and confirm.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order in speaking again, but this is a different amendment from the one on which I spoke previously. I should like to raise for my noble friend's consideration whether, if a landowner objects to the suggestion made, during the period of appeal the bridleway can be used as a vehicular way during what may be a very

571
long period. I think that that has given concern to many of us.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite has raised a vital question and I can sympathise with the Minister in not being able to give a reply. I appreciate that it is not easy to give a reply, but he has promised to look into it and to give a reply to his noble friend. I think it would be very useful if that reply could be made general, perhaps in writing, because this is an important point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in view of the complications that we still seem to be in on this matter, I do not think it has been resolved satisfactorily. I think that the best thing would be for me to withdraw this amendment, and perhaps we could liaise with my noble friend before Third Reading in order to resolve this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Duty to reclassify roads used as public paths]:
6.34 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment 173SCBA:
Page 36, line 37, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I spoke also to the next three amendments and to Amendment No. 173SCDA. I can do all that very briefly. These amendments are designed to simplify and clarify the procedure contained in Clause 42 for the reclassification of roads used as public paths. As at present drafted, Clause 42 allows for roads used as public paths to be reclassified as footpaths if bridleway rights have been shown not to exist. My amendments mean that public paths would automatically be reclassified as bridleways unless vehicular rights can be shown to exist, but would only be classified as a footpath under the provisions of Clause 41. This is a considerable simplification of the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Lord Digby: My Lords, when I started looking at rights of way I always thought that if there was a bridleway it was as good as having a footpath from the walkers' point of view, but of course it is not. If it is a footpath it should be classified as such because a bridleway can get very muddy if used by a lot of horses and I think that the footpath should be left in.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I indicated, I think in response to Amendment No. 173SC, that I regard the reclassification of roads used as public paths within the context of Clause 41 as somewhat illogical, and perhaps the most sensible and practical arrangement is to keep proposals resulting from the reclassification exercise apart from proposals arising from the normal day-to-day review of definitive maps. For that reason, I am afraid that I cannot support the proposal. The point raised by my noble friend confirms that there is some blurring in this area, if I may put it that way, and what we are trying to do in the Bill is to get as much clarifica
572
tion as possible. On this particular point we should not be able to accept it for the reasons given, but again it is not with any great happiness that I say that.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, if my understanding is correct—that is, that a bridleway automatically includes the rights of a footpath—I think that that answers part of the question that was raised. I shall not waste the time of the House as the Minister does not agree with this, but shall simply ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 173SCBB, 173SCBC and 173SCBD not moved.]
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 173SCC:
Page 37, line 9, at end insert—
("(d) before showing any road used as a public path as a byway open to all traffic account shall be taken of its suitability for vehicular traffic having regard to the position and width of the existing right of way, the condition and state of repair of the way, and the nature of the soil together with the hardship which might be caused by extinguishment of vehicular rights.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 173SCA, and in moving it, I should like to say a word by way of reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench. This amendment puts back into the Bill the provision to take account of the suitability of the way of reclassifying a road used as a public path, as was done in the 1968 Act. I understand the objection that there was a lack of uniformity in interpretation of the old arrangement, but the question arises whether it is nevertheless worthwhile to endeavour to get over this by issuing a circular in order to overcome that lack of conformity in interpretation. I believe that there are grounds for thinking that it might be worth further thought, first, because it would be better than having to get a Road Traffic Act order if vehicles really have to be stopped on a path which becomes unsuitable or will become unsuitable very quickly.
Another aspect of the matter is that, if the question was dealt with all in one in this way, the map would simply say "bridleway" if vehicles were stopped, and there would then be no further doubt in the mind of anyone who looked at the map; they would see "bridleway", and that would mean quite definitely that there was no vehicular use. If it is not done in that way and a road traffic order has to be obtained, it will not be clear from looking at the map whether that has been done or not. I think that that is a point of considerable practical importance. I just wanted to make those points, but I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 173SCD and 173SCDA not moved.]
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 173SCE:
Page 37, line 28, at end insert—
("(8) Where a surveying authority have undertaken a special review under the Countryside Act 1968, and a way formerly shown as a road used as a public path has been reclassified as a footpath or bridleway then public vehicular rights will thereby be extinguished").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, there is a misprint in this amendment: it should read "page 37, line 29".
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before my noble friend makes up his mind what he wishes to do with this amendment, I must say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I really cannot quite accept his argument. It does seem that this falls in with all the principles of this side of the House, in that it would cut down unnecessary bureaucracy. All we are asking here is that the work which has been done by the local authority to reclassify should not now have to be done once again. But I leave it to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton to decide what action he will take.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with the other two amendments. Just to remind your Lordships, it concerns the extinguishment of vehicular rights on roads used as public paths reclassiffied under the 1968 Act. I am most grateful for the support that I received from noble Lords. I think, in view of this, that I should prefer to press this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a conundrum? I have a drove road in Scotland which goes right across the hills and which used to be used quite a lot. Can my noble friend tell me what is the position of a drove road under this Bill? I have not seen it mentioned in this Bill at all. Does it come into the Bill? It is a road where you drive cattle or sheep. Is it a right of way, is it a footpath, is it a road? Can you ride on it?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as far as I am aware, it does not come within the Bill, and I certainly have not the faintest idea what a drove road is.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I think it is a piece of hard ground crossing a bog.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Schedule 12 [Procedure in connection with certain orders under Part III]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173SCEA:
Page 78, line 40, leave out ("in") and insert ("under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on this occasion I wish to speak to a series of amendments, Nos. 173SCEA, 173SCEB, 173SCEC, 173SCED, 173SCGC, 173SCHA, 173SCHB, 174ZBD, 174ZBM, 174ZBN, 175D, 175K, and 180BA. Your Lordships will doubtless recollect the undertaking I gave in Committee as to Government amendments to give effect to the alternative procedure recommended by Michael Spicer's informal Rights of Way Committee for publicising definitive map and public path orders. The principal objective of the revised procedure is to dispense with the requirement to publish notices in the London Gazette, thus reducing the expenditure incurred by local authorities in publicising orders.
The amendments concentrate on those aspects of the Committee's proposals which are directly concerned with publicity. Those features which in our view are incidental to publicity or do not necessarily provide
574
an alternative to the London Gazette, such as the free distribution of copies of published orders to selected organisations or the posting of a plan with the site notices if practicable, have not been included. Nevertheless, authorities will be recommended to adopt these practices in any post-enactment guidance published. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as far as they go I certainly warmly welcome this long package of amendments, and am grateful to the Government for them. As I understand it, the Government have left out several of the Spicer Committee's recommendations which the noble Lord said at Committee stage he hoped to implement in this package of amendments. I am not on the Spicer Committee so I am not sure about this, but it may be that the noble Lord can confirm whether I am right if I list the things which I think have been left out which were agreed by the local authority representatives together with everyone else on the Spicer Committee. There are four points which I think have been omitted and which I think were agreed, but I am really asking for confirmation.
The first is the requirement for authorities to sell copies of orders to the public. I think that might be covered if the noble Lord is going to accept a later amendment of mine; at least the principle would be covered. I understand that was agreed by everybody on the Spicer Committee, including the local authority representatives. The second point is a procedure whereby individuals and organisations could have copies of notices sent to them by the authorities making the orders on prior payment. This is really much the same point. They would have a sort of standing order arrangement so that, for the convenience of everyone, people could get these things clearly. There is no question of cost to the local authorities because there would be a payment for them. That would have met the problem that those who currently use the London Gazette, which they can order regularly, would have been able to follow the same procedure.
The third thing which seems to have been left out is the requirement for the notice placed on a path to be accompanied by a plan showing the effect of the order. As I understand it, the amendments simply require a notice and not a plan. Obviously, for anybody seeing the notice it is quite a major thing to have the plan there as well. The fourth thing is the requirement for a copy of the order and the plan to be available for public inspection at a place within five miles of the path concerned, or if this is not practicable at the nearest office of the district council concerned.
I am sure it is not intentional, but four of the things which the Spicer Committee agreed on, all of which would have helped the public and those other people concerned to know what was going on, seem to have been omitted from the amendments listed. I hope the Government will be bringing forward some more amendments and will look at the point, if they are not able to answer it now.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I may reply by leave of the House, certainly one would want to have a look. I know of no specific reason why they were omitted but there would be no difficulty, unless there were

575
some real objection to their being brought in. If so, I will be in touch with the noble Lord. I hope that that will not prevent his agreeing to what we are proposing in these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173SCEB:
Page 78, line 42, leave out ("the London Gazette and also").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173SCEC:
Page 79, line 1, leave out from ("on") to end of line 4 and insert("—

(i) every owner and occupier of any of that land;

(ii) every local authority whose area includes any of that land; and

(iii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate; and

(c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

(i) at the ends of so much of any way as is affected by the draft order; and

(ii) at such other places as the authority may consider appropriate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173SCED:
Page 79, line 9, after ("(b)") insert ("(i)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SCEE:
Page 79, line 28, after ("inquiry") insert ("or hearing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really the most important amendment, or set of amendments, with which we shall deal in this part of the Bill at the Report stage, given that the other matter of some substance and controversy, the question of bulls on public footpaths, we have not returned to after the amendment on that matter was defeated in Committee. With this amendment I have a very long list of other amendments to which I should like to speak, and I apologise for the awkward lettering. The list is as follows: Amendments Nos. 173SCFA, SCGA, and SCGB; Amendments Nos. 174ZBA, ZBB, ZBC, ZBF, ZBG, ZBH, ZBJ, ZBK, ZBL, ZBP, ZCA, ZCB, ZCC and ZCD; Amendments Nos. 175A, B, C, E, F, G, H and L; and, finally, Amendment No. 176D.
These amendments deal with the question of who should have the final say when there is a dispute about a public path and definitive map amendment order. The Government propose to transfer jurisdiction of this matter to local authorities. I think that there is a unanimous view inside your Lordships' House, and certainly outside the House, that this is really an outrage to every principle of natural justice and is not something which should be accepted. I shall explain why I think that it is an outrage to every principle of natural justice in a moment.
These amendments would keep jurisdiction with the Secretary of State, rather than transfer it to local authorities. But Amendment No. 176D—the very last one—gives the Secretary of State power to delegate his jurisdiction to an inspector, so that if this power were invoked the only practical difference between the
576
system envisaged by what the Government have proposed in the Bill and the system which would result from these amendments being accepted is that the inspector who will hear a public inquiry, and who is drawn from a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, will, instead of writing a report making recommendations to a local authority for them to accept or reject as they please, make a decision. That is the system which applies in the majority of planning appeals and which, as I understand it, the current Secretary of State for the Environment would like to see even more widely used in that field—in other words, in planning appeals. It seems to me that if it is good enough for planning appeals it should be good enough to meet this problem.
It is supported by the evidence contained in the decision letters on public path orders sent to the Ramblers Association by the Department of the Environment during 1980. There were 207 in all, of which 138 involved an inspector conducting an inquiry or hearing; the remaining 69 being dealt with by written representations. Of the 138 that were dealt with by inspectors, the Secretary of State refused to accept only 14. So out of 138 the Secretary of State was happy with all but 14. In other words, the inspectors were coming to decisions which, broadly and generally—in fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases—were acceptable to the Secretary of State, and it would seem quite reasonable for the matter to be left with them from his point of view. Of the 14 that were not accepted, several of them were refused on legal grounds as under the present arrangements inspectors are not properly briefed on legal issues and are instructed to refer them to the department. Clearly, if these amendments went through it would be necessary for the inspector to be given the legal advice that would avoid those problems. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am getting in a bit of a muddle. Is the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, also speaking to Amendment No. 174YA? He spoke rather quickly, and I do not quite understand whether or not he is speaking to that amendment.
Lord Melchett: No, my Lords, I am not speaking to Amendment No. 174YA. That amendment is similar, but it deals with a different point; in other words, it deals with the rights of appeal, but in quite different circumstances. I think the same arguments apply, and that if this amendment is accepted that one would automatically follow. However, this amendment deals with a rather wider question.
In replying to the Committee stage debate for the Government the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said on 17th February at col. 663:
"I should prefer to put the thrust of the argument"—
that is, the Government's argument—
"on the point I made about the responsibilities and obligations of local authorities. They have obligations in this matter. They have to answer and to live with the decisions that they make".
I accept that, but I simply do not believe that it is right for a local authority—which is involved in a decision; which may have originated the proposals; which then argues for those proposals at an inquiry or any subsequent discussion; which then makes an

577
order and which then defends the decision to make an order against the objections at the inquiry held by an inspector drawn from the Secretary of State's panel—to be perfectly free, unconstrained by anything in the Bill, to override the inspector, whatever decision the inspector has come to, and decide in favour of its own original proposal. That is why I say that, as the Bill stands, this is an outrage to natural justice.
In fact, what the local authority is being asked to do is, first, to be the arresting officer—it makes the original proposal. Then it is being asked to be the prosecution—it is being asked to advocate the original proposal. Then it is being asked to be the judge and jury in the matter at the end of the day. That is an affront to natural justice; it cannot be right. It has received widespread opposition from many different interests, including, as I understand it, some local authorities, and I hope that the Government will now accept this set of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it seems to me that there are two basic questions which arise in this matter. The first is: are local authorities the appropriate level of government to take decisions on such matters; and, secondly, if so, are they capable of discharging that responsibility fairly and efficiently? We had a long debate on these questions in Committee, and I do not propose to rehearse the same arguments at length again. But let us for a moment consider what we are talking about. We are talking about two things: first, definitive maps of public rights of way; and, secondly, public path orders.
Let us look first at definitive maps. This is no more than a record, a catalogue of what exists, which needs to be brought up-to-date, corrected and kept up-to-date. What, one may think, could be simpler? We have learned that it is not as simple as all that; that the establishment of what exists is not always easy; that there is scope for conflicting views which may be difficult to reconcile. But, in essence, what we have is a quest for facts, based on evidence which needs to be examined closely. What we need, therefore, is a forum where this evidence can be sifted, presided over by a person who is independent of the parties who may be bringing forward the evidence. I think that so far we are in agreement. But we are providing this and, as I say, so far there is no difficulty.
However, the problem is what should happen next? Should this person take the final decision? Should he report to the Secretary of State or should he report to the local authority? I find the first option unacceptable. It seems to be generally agreed that the person to conduct inquiries should be the inspector from the department—there is no difficulty there. But he is, after all, an official and I consider that the suggestion that, as an individual, he should be placed in a position of jurisdiction over an elected body like a county council cannot be right.
Therefore, the choice rests between reporting to and final adjudication by the Secretary of State and the local authority. I put it to your Lordships that, in the light of what is involved here, the justification for involving the Secretary of State is very slim indeed. What we are being asked to accept is that each and every objection made to every definitive map order is an issue of such importance as to warrant the attention
578
of the Secretary of State. I do not minimise the importance of rights of way when I say that I find that suggestion difficult to accept.
Therefore, we are thrown on to the third solution; that of requiring the inspector to report to the local authority. Again, bearing in mind the issues involved—that all we are engaged in is a search for facts—I find that solution not unreasonable.
I turn to public path orders—creation, diversion and extinguishment orders. What we have to ask ourselves now, is whether there is sufficient distinction between these and definitive map orders to justify treating them differently. I acknowledge that now we are no longer talking about a record or a catalogue. The issue now is whether a path should be created, diverted or stopped-up. We are now no longer seeking to establish facts; we are concerned with the merits of doing something, something which it may be in the interests of a local authority to promote. So is the local authority the right decision-maker in this case? The answer to this question I suggest hinges largely on the answer to the second question I asked at the beginning; namely, is the local authority capable of discharging the responsibility fairly and efficiently?
Much has been made of the fact that the local authority will be taking a final decision on something that they themselves have initiated. The judge and jury aspect of it has, of course, given cause for not unreasonable concern. But this is not a situation which is unknown when the Secretary of State himself initiates a proposal the fate of which he will ultimately decide. However, it is usually accepted by the majority of people that there may be cases where the Secretary of State has to do this and where it is not unreasonable that he should do so. In such a circumstance it could be said that he is judge and jury in his own cause.
However, when we suggest that the local authority should have the same privilege in relation to public path orders, there is objection. But why? It can only be that many consider the answer to my question whether the local authority is capable of doing the job fairly and efficiently to be, no. It can only be that people would mistrust the impartiality and efficiency of the local authority and, indeed, there is evidence—and I have to say that in our correspondence there is such concern—that that is the case, and particularly so on the point of impartiality; I make no bones about that. But we must decide whether this lack of trust is justified.
To judge from some of the correspondence, one might think that local authorities are governed entirely by farmers who cannot wait to seize this power so that they can close all the footpaths which cross their land and which they find a nuisance; and that they will not bother to declare an interest while they are doing so. The situation is simply this, and here I conclude because we can talk at length about it and at the end of the day we must come to a view: we had long discussions in Committee on this. It will be open to anyone to object to any proposals which an authority may make. Those objections will be heard and carefully considered by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. The findings will ultimately be published, with all the implications which will flow from that and from the knowledge that the findings will be published. The authority will come to a decision, taking

579
those findings into account.
For myself, I have enough faith in local government and those who work in it to say that I firmly believe that such an order of procedure will lead to no less fairness in reaching decisions than if it is to be made obligatory for the Secretary of State to be the final arbiter. I invite your Lordships to share that faith with me.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as a co-mover of this amendment I let my name go forward on it because in Clandon in Surrey, where I live, there was an old footpath which, after much argument, the local authority wanted to divert. I would hasten to add that I think that Surrey County Council is a good and conscientious local authority. Of course, people have arguments with it, but on the whole it is a good and conscientious local authority.
That county council was taken to the High Court by Send Parish Council to get a writ of mandamus and it was told to carry out its duties according to the law, with some fairly scathing comments on the part of the judge in the High Court. It seems to me that local authorities ought not to be able to be judge and jury in their own case. When my noble friend Lord Bellwin says that for the inspector, who is not elected, to have the final say is wrong, I would point out that surely the High Court judge who in this case ruled on the writ of mandamus was also not elected. Therefore, according to my noble friend's argument, perhaps that also would be wrong.
That is all I have to say. It seems to me to be a fairly strong argument for maintaining the ultimate power of the Secretary of State. Incidentally, the Secretary of State being judge and jury in his own case must, I suppose, be acceptable; it is not ideally acceptable, but let us not add extra cases where one is not really quite good enough.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this amendment and this series of amendments raise a very vital question: that of justice. It is important that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. The Minister posed this question, which is quite a fair question: are local authorities capable of doing the job fairly and efficiently? My answer to that is, no. Some local authorities may be capable of doing it; other local authorities are not capable of doing it. I do not think that the public and the parties involved in these matters will have confidence in the complete impartiality of some local authorities.
It is not use saying that they are elected bodies. These questions involve judicial decisions; local authorities are not experts in arriving at impartial judicial decisions. The inspectors appointed from a panel chosen by the Secretary of State have experience in weighing evidence and reaching impartial judgments on matters of fact. It seems to me to be totally wrong that we should legislate to enable a local authority to ignore and oppose a recommendation made by one of Her Majesty's inspectors so appointed.
The Minister says that there is an analogy by reason of the fact that sometimes a Secretary of State must be judge and jury in his own cause. But, as has been pointed out, in those cases the citizen has a remedy;
580
that is, the remedy of going to the courts and asking for a writ of mandamus. It is rarely used, but it is a very valuable reserve power. It could be said that a citizen has the same right in the case of a decision by a local authority, but surely it is not fair to put the citizen into that situation. Surely the right course is to ensure that, when there are controversial decisions, there should be some impartial judge to decide on the merits, and that the local authority, as one of the contestants, should not have the final right to a decision or right of veto. It seems to me that there is such a vital principle at issue in this case that I hope my noble friends will support these amendments in the Lobby.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I spoke to this at Committee stage and I must support this amendment for all the reasons I supported similar amendments on local government land planning. I would just say that in the article my noble friend quoted which appeared in The Times today, I must take exception to it. So far as I am concerned, The Times is quite entitled to its opinion, but it must try to report factually, and on this occasion it stated that the National Farmers' Union has been against this, but the National Farmers' Union has never been against it. Indeed, it was in the National Farmers' Union's brief.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope that it will not go on the record that those of us who support the amendment are in any way trying to question or undermine the integrity of local authorities. That is not our objective at all. In insisting that this goes forward to a Division we are not saying that local authorities are likely to act as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, unfairly, or irresponsibly or, inefficiently. What we are saying is that there may be genuine differences of opinion on the merits of these proposals which we are not happy about leaving to the local authorities, as the originators of those proposals, to be in the last position to decide. There is no way in which we can conceal the difference of opinion which exists here, and we do believe there should be some way in which these matters can be tested by someone other than those who originally made the decision.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I too spoke on the Committee stage and I just wish to mention one point, as practically every other point has been covered. The only relevant point which I believe has been left out at this stage and which could be mentioned is about the county councils and these footpaths, which are just as much a part of the Queen's highway as any other road, and I support this amendment. Paths go from one county council to another. I think that is a relevant point and one that should be mentioned before your Lordships decide which way to cast your votes.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I believe it is the feeling of this House that we should come to a decision. May I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said; there is nothing, among those of us supporting this measure, critical of local authorities or their elected representatives. Just as it would not be critical of the police to say that it would be wrong for a police

581
officer to arrest somebody and then to act as the judge and jury, and for the police officer himself to sentence the person, it seems to me to be no more critical of a local authority to say that it should be placed in that position by the Government. So far as I can gather, this view seems to be shared by at least some local authorities. Southwark Council has written to me saying that they do not consider this power should be given to local authorities, and I understand that Hampshire, Devon and Wiltshire county councils are also a little uncertain in their attitudes to the Government proposals.
I believe this is an embarrassment to local authorities. They are being placed in an impossible position by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the inspector would be looking at questions of fact. So the inspector is; the inspector will be finding on questions of fact and the Government will then say that a local authority can simply overrule that if they wish. This to me seems to be an outrage, and I hope this House will pass these amendments.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173SCEE) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 70; Not-Contents 60.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Loudoun, C.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

Melchett, L.

Boston, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fletcher, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sandford, L.

Hall, V.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Spens, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Thurso, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

White, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Balerno, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mansfield, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burton, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Digby, L.

Ridley, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Just, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Halifax, E.

Tranmire, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trenchard, V.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Inglewood, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kemsley, V.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if it is for the convenience of the House, I beg to move that we adjourn further consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill until 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

European Assembly Elections Bill
Read 3a, and passed.

Trees (Replanting and Replacement) Bill [H.L.]
7.21 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Somers.)
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the vote is taken I should like to say a few words on this old favourite as it completes its second passage through your Lordships' House. I think that someone—and I take that duty—should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on the great perseverance he has shown in piloting it through your Lordships' House on two different occasions. There is only one criticism that I want to make. I spoke on all stages when it was first before your Lordships, and in its present career I spoke at Second Reading but was unable to be present at Committee stage or at Report stage. I therefore was rather surprised when I received my Hansard to find that the schedule, which had been deleted from the Bill on an amendment of mine at Committee stage when it was before your Lordships before, had now been reintroduced as an amendment by the noble Lord himself and was now forming part of the Bill, as it does today.

583
I think this is a great pity. I have studied the species on the schedule with care and it seems to me almost as though the species included have been chosen on a capricious basis. There are common species and rare species; conifers and hardwoods; the sweet chestnut is included but the horse chestnut is not. The wild cherry is there but not the ornamental cherry, nor the almond, nor any other of the flowering trees which are so often used by local authorities in avenues in towns and cities. I very much preferred the Bill as it was when it finished its first passage through your Lordships' House when all species were covered. No matter what species was cut down by a local authority it had to be replanted, although as it then was the local authority could plant any species it liked whereas now it must plant any of the species on this list.
As I understand it, a walnut can be cut down and replaced with an ash, but it may not be replaced by some tree not on this list. I should have preferred to have left that to the local authority, but to insist that any tree, no matter of what species, had to be replaced by two others. It is too late to do anything about it now even if that was the wish of your Lordships' House, and my purpose in speaking these few words tonight is in the hope that possibly they may fall to the attention of a Member of another place who may think about what I have said and propose some action along these lines. Be that as it may, I hope that it finds time in another place; that it has a successful passage through that House, and eventually reaches the statute book.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should apologise because I have been unable to take part in any of the debates on this Bill. As one who is very interested in trees—and indeed this very morning I was planting trees on behalf of my own local authority at home, in a snowstorm I might add—and who has taken a keen interest in the progress of this Bill, I regret that I have not been able to join in the detail of it. As your Lordships probably know, I am concerned in the affairs of the Association of County Councils who, I am afraid I have to say, do not really like this Bill. Although they would not feel that it is of major importance, it makes the assumption that local authorities do not like planting trees and therefore have to be compelled to do so by Parliament, which is a wrong assumption because they plant a great many trees—far more than ever they would need to do under this little Bill. They do not feel that it is right that Parliament should interfere in this.
Secondly, this is not the moment when we should be adding more duties to local authorities and more bureaucracy in rendering returns, and all those other matters. It should be safely, and can be safely left in my opinion, to the local authorities and the locally elected members. They have a very good reputation indeed for planting trees, and I think more trees are planted by local authorities than by anybody else at the moment. The other thing I find difficult to understand—and I was not at the other stages—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has already mentioned it, is this schedule. It includes a lot of alien species, some of which would have been an offence under Clause 13
584
of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill had we not removed it last week. But then every local authority might have been guilty of an offence by planting a cupressus tree, for instance, which is not native to Britain.
What is worse in my opinion is that it leaves out quite a lot of species and trees which are familiar in the British landscape and which are planted very widely indeed, and some of which are our own native species, of which we have already 34 in this country. Some of them are not particularly valuable, but what we have should not in any way be restricted by the use of this schedule. I hope very much, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has said, that in another place the schedule can be sufficiently amended to include other species if it is to go forward.
I only quote thorns, maples, sycamores, horse chestnuts, our only native conifer the Scots pine, willows of all species, poplars other than the aspen, of which there are a great many valuable ornamental species—I could go on all night about this—as well as a lot more introduced species commonly planted like, for example, nothofagus, the South American beech, which is widely thought of as being a very good town tree and valuable for planting in hedgerows, et cetera. I hope I have said enough to persuade the House that, while the Bill may be laudable in intent, it should not go too far, although I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has spent a lot of time on it. Although I do not oppose it, I cannot wish it a very fair wind.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I feel I must say a few words in reply. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was kind enough to tell me he was going to make the remarks he did. As for the presence of the schedule, I reinserted it on official advice. The noble Lord must realise that it narrows the application of the measure; without it, the regulations contained in the Bill would apply to every tree in a local authority's area. As it is, they are not forced to do anything about trees except those contained in the schedule. As for the nature of the schedule, the main object of the Bill in the first place was to preserve hardwood, slow growing, trees, of which local authorities would not be likely to plant many; because they are so slow growing they would never see the result. They are much more likely to plant trees which will reach a reasonable maturity within a few years. Further, hardwood is practically impossible to obtain in this country today, so it is high time we saw to it that the supply of hardwood does not shrink any further. Those were the two main objects of the Bill and I must tell the noble Lord that the wild cherry, in which I have recently been working, is very hard.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, most of the species in the schedule are hardwoods. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, it is rather strange that nearly half the species on the list are not hardwoods but softwoods. Two of the others, the aspen and silver birch in particular, are extremely fast-growing species. In other words, they are neither all hardwoods nor all slow-growing trees. As I said, it seems to be a capricious choice.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the silver birch is a much faster growing tree but its wood is widely used and I should have thought it was not one that was likely

585
to be replanted by a council. Be that as it may, I have explained the reason for the schedule and I hope it will be accepted. Having seen the number of Private Members' Bills that have been accepted and become law, I do not think your Lordships need have any fear of this one ever reaching the statute book. On the other hand, I suggest it would be a good thing to get the subject an airing in the other place.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I wish at this stage to record my grateful thanks to all those who have advised and given me help with the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Somers.)
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m., and reassemble at that time for further consideration on Report of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.35 until 8.10 p.m.].

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Further considered on Report on Schedule 12.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173SCEF:
Page 79, line 28, at end insert—
("Representations or objections made with respect to abandoned surveys or reviews
2A.—(1) This paragraph applies where a survey begun under sections 27 to 32 of the 1949 Act, or a review begun under section 33 of that Act, is abandoned after a draft map and statement have been prepared.
(2) If a draft order modifies the definitive map and statement so as—

(a) to show any particulars shown in the draft map and statement but not in the definitive map and statement; or

(b) to omit any particulars shown in the definitive map and statement but not in the draft map and statement,

any representation or objection duly made with respect to the showing in or omission from the draft map and statement of those particulars shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 3 and 4 as a representation or objection duly made with respect to the corresponding modifications made by the draft order.
Severance of Orders
2B. Where representations or objections duly made and not withdrawn relate to some but not all of the modifications made by a draft order, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 shall have effect as if not one but two draft orders had been prepared under paragraph 2—

(a) the one comprising the modifications to which the representations or objections relate; and

(b) the other comprising the remaining modifications.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I said in Committee that in the light of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on the Government's transitional arrangements for winding up outstanding surveys and reviews, I would consider further whether anything could be done to save the objections to proposals that would lapse on the abandonment of a survey or review. Your
586
Lordships may recollect that my noble friend Lord Ridley had down an amendment which attempted to deal with the problem, but which in the event was not moved.
We recognise the serious consequences of abandonment, and a great deal of thought and consideration has been given to ways and means of safeguarding the interests of affected objectors. Our proposed solution, as embodied in the first part of the amendment, is that whenever a proposal which would lapse on abandonment is revived by means of a definitive map order under Clauses 41 or 42, authorities would be required to treat the objection or representation to the proposal as if it were with respect to the order.
The second part of the amendment refines the procedure for dealing with opposed definitives map orders. One of the distinct advantages of a definitive map review system, based on individual orders, is its inherent flexibility. It gives authorities the facility to choose, as circumstances require, between orders which cover a single proposal to amend the map and statement, or omnibus orders encompassing several proposals. In fact we expect omnibus orders to become an established feature of the new procedure.
The purpose of the amendment, which derives from one tabled by my noble friend Lord Ridley in Committee, which, incidentally, was not moved, but which the Government were prepared to consider, is to refine the present procedure for dealing with orders by enabling authorities, once the objection period had expired and all the objections and representations had been received, to treat the original draft omnibus order as two separate orders. Since the proposal accords with the philosophy behind the revision of the review procedures that definitive maps and statements should be kept continuously up-to-date, I trust that it will receive your Lordships' support. I beg to move.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful and I am sure that he will not be surprised to know that I support the amendment, though I do not think it goes quite far enough, and I should like to explain to the Minister my reservations. I do not expect him to give an unqualified reply at the moment, but I would ask him to note my reservations and to give some thought to them, because I believe that in order to further the concession that he has in mind some additional revision is required.
Amendment No. 173SCEF, as it stands, makes certain provisions, which I welcome, for some of the circumstances in which a review has begun but has not been completed. The introductory words in 2A refer to where a review has begun and is abandoned, and the provision goes on to relate to certain steps that would follow.
That is satisfactory, but it does not cover the situation, with which I am concerned, where a review has taken place, but has not been completed, and where certain representations have been made to the local authority and passed on to the Minister suggesting, with evidence, that a particular footpath has been omitted from the map and ought to be included in it. As I read the Bill with the amendment, there is no provision as to what should happen during the transitory period. There is no provision that in those circumstances the local authority should be required, or

587
indeed that the Minister should be empowered, to proceed with the inquiry and consider the objections that have been raised to the non-inclusion in the draft map of a footpath which, it is represented, should be on the map.
As I read the amendment it does not cover that particular point. I think that the point would be covered if Amendment No. 173SD, to which we shall come later, is accepted, but of course I cannot anticipate what the Minister is to say with regard to that amendment. Therefore I thought it reasonable to make this point at this stage for the further consideration of the Minister.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to echo what my noble friend has said, and because I am echoing his points I shall be very brief. The amendment is of course welcome. It meets a point which was raised in at least two amendments at the Committee stage, but does not do so entirely. As I understand it, the amendment does not ensure that the authority would make an order even though it will now be able to. Secondly, the amendment does not, I understand, apply to the case where the authority failed to add a claimed right of way to the draft map and an objection was entered in an attempt to add the path; that is the point that my noble friend was making. So it seems to me that there is an important omission. As my noble friend said, perhaps when we come to Amendment No. 173SD the Government will accept it, and I believe that that would meet at least part of our objections to what the Government are proposing. However as this amendment stands, I think it is a small step in the right direction, but it certainly does not go all the way.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lords are looking for giant strides. I cannot make comment on what has been said, other than to say that we shall have a look at it. The amendment is presented in order to meet the points that were raised. If it transpires that there would be no difficulty in going the extra distance—if I may put it that way—that is asked for, then we shall look at that. I know that your Lordships will not expect me to say any more on this point at the moment. On the other point, concerning the amendment that is yet to come, had we been able to accept that amendment then I should have let the matter go, but for reasons that we shall explain when we come to it, we do not feel able to do so. That is why I say what I do say about this matter as it is.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am grateful for the fact that he is to consider the point. May I ask him to write to my noble friend and myself letting us know the result of his consideration, and then we may not need to raise the matter at Third Reading?
Lord Bellwin: I shall do that, my Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SCF:
Page 79, line 31, leave out ("with or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, too, was discussed at the Committee stage, on 17th February. In moving the amendment I wish to speak to Amendment No. 174ZBE at the same time. The purpose of Amendment No. l73SCF is to deny to order-making authorities the chance to modify unopposed orders. This is an important point, and when we discussed it at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the Government would like to think about it a little further. I argued for this proposal at the Committee stage, and I shall not repeat all that I then said, but I should like to remind your Lordships of the point with which we are concerned in this amendment.
The Bill makes a change in procedure from past practice, in that it allows authorities to modify unopposed orders, which has not been the case up until now. The amendments would change the Bill so that the existing position applied. As I said at the Committee stage, the problem here is that an authority could modify an order which has not been opposed in a way that would be totally unacceptable to those concerned, either the user groups or the landowner or farmer.
To take an example, it would be possible, as I understand the Bill, for the authority to make an order putting a path down the side of a field, across a lane and down the side of another field. That would not be opposed by the farmer, who might think it reasonable, or by the user group. It would then be possible, if there were no opposition, for it to come back to the authority, who would modify it and, say, put the path down the middle of the field because they thought that would be safer than to cross the lane. That would be unacceptable to the farmer, who would have opposed it had they originally proposed that and who would oppose it if he could but who cannot because, as I understand the Bill, it would be too late. I cannot believe that this is what the Government intend. It is not right. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments, which would return the situation to that which operates now and which, as I understand it, gives rise to no problems. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern over this issue since paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 read in isolation appears to allow a local authority to modify an unopposed order at will and thereby unfairly prejudice someone's interest. But looking at it carefully I am satisfied (and I think the noble Lord will also be satisfied) that this is not the case. If the noble Lord will turn his attention to paragraph 5 he will see that notwithstanding what is said in paragraph 3 there are restrictions on an authority's power to make orders with modifications. These restrictions prevent an authority from modifying an order with the result that land not affected by the draft order is affected; they prevent an authority from showing any way not shown on the draft order or vice versa; and they prevent an authority from changing the description of a way shown in the draft order without first publicising the fact and giving people an opportunity to object and thus set the public inquiry machinery in motion.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I am trying to follow what the noble Lord is saying.

589
He drew my attention to a paragraph in Schedule 12. I am not sure which paragraph.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it was paragraph 5. The only modifications which an authority could make without publicity, therefore, are very minor ones about which they could reasonably expect no one to be concerned. I trust that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will agree with me and feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, could the Minister explain what sort of amendments the local authority could make? He says that they are minor. I read what is said in paragraph 5; but one cannot understand from paragraph 5 why there should be any power to make the modifications mentioned in paragraph 2. If they are of such a minor nature, why should the power be there at all?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord on that at this stage. I trust the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will see that the points I was making are valid in themselves regardless of the other points which he raised I will come back to those and give him some details of amendments so minor that it could be expected that no one would be concerned about them. I hope he agrees that the points made as to paragraph 5 are valid.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that I have looked at paragraph 5. It says that the authority shall not make an order so as to affect land not affected by the draft order. I do not understand whether that means that you have to keep in the same field or that you cannot move a square inch either side of the original line. It makes an enormous difference to a farmer whether a path is in the middle or on the side of a field. In the normal usage of English, my first instinct would be that it must mean that you cannot take it into a different field. It sounds as if you might be able to move from one side of a field to another.
As we know, even if you can only move it about two feet that can have the most enormous consequences, as in the case which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, quoted before dinner, in a different debate. Reading the judgment in that case concerning the Surrey County Council, somebody had built a swimming pool at the bottom of their garden and after the householders had finished it their gardens included land which was a public footpath. This pool adjutted onto the footpath for a foot or six inches. Matters of inches could be important. Changing a path by a few inches can, where a householder's garden is affected, be important. Does "the same land" mean that if you have it going down a certain line you cannot move it an inch in either direction? I think at (b) it is clearer. It is the first point which bothers me.
But there is another point, apart from that which deals with the general description of rights of way and the land which is affected. It does not deal with more detailed points of wording; but, as I said at Committee, some of the changes which might be made—I have not got examples—it is possible to see could lead to being wrongly drafted an order which, when published in
590
draft, had been correctly drafted. Those drafting points might invalidate the order or cause other problems. There is a great deal of expertise about this in a complicated area, but whether every local authority will have the same degree of expertise I am not sure. The scrutiny which draft orders are subject to by user groups is very important even when it gets to detailed drafts. Has the noble Lord anything more he wishes to say before I withdraw or press the amendment?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should like to mention one point. Would the noble Lord not feel that, while there may be merit in the points he makes, the fact is that the authority is prevented from changing the description of a way shown without first publicising it? Does the fact that there must be publicity, which will give the people the opportunity to object and set the machinery of inquiry in motion, not cover the situation he describes?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it does not. That is a misunderstanding. It says in paragraph 3:
"If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the authority may make the order with or without modifications".
They can make the order and not publicise it. They can make it with or without modification. That does not meet the point.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have thought that was subject to paragraph 5. The noble Lord quoted paragraph 3. I promise not to interrupt again.
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords, but that takes me back to the original way. What does paragraph 5(1)(a) mean by "land not affected by the draft order"? Where is the land not affected by the order? I hope the noble Lord might let me have an answer in writing to that. The other thing I do not think is dealt with (and I do not want to delay the House) is this. What about drafting errors? They can be very important. As I read paragraph 5, it does not stop an authority changing the drafting as widely as they wish. There is nothing about drafting here, and the detailed wording. That may not he of very much consequence from the land owner's or the farmer's point of view. However, it might be from the user's point of view if the drafting has changed the way that makes the whole order a nonsense, invalidates it or is going to lead to some celebrated case in the House of Lords in 20 years' time, as a lot of these seem to do eventually. Perhaps the noble Lord could look at those two points. I see that he is nodding. I am grateful for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SCFA:
Page 79, line 34, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
("4.—(1) If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn the authority shall notify the Secretary of State who shall cause a local inquiry to be held, or afford to any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn, an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose.
(2) After considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations and objections, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may direct the authority to make the order with or without modifications and the

591
authority shall as soon as may be thereafter make the order accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the amendment on which we divided just before the dinner break. There is a long string of consequential amendments and, if it is convenient to the House, I shall move them formally and en bloc, where possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SCG:
Page 80, line 6, leave out ("such notice as appears to them requisite") and insert ("notice in the manner specified in paragraph 2(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment that we discussed in Committee and which received some support from noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, had an amendment down which made almost the same point but in a different way.
This amendment would affect sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of Schedule 12. That sub-paragraph requires a surveying authority to give notice of any proposal to modify a draft definitive map amendment order in such a way as to apply to land not affected by the original order, to omit any way shown in the draft order, to include any way not shown in the draft order or to change the status of the way shown in the draft order; in other words, to change something from footpath to bridleway or byway, or vice-versa. That is all right so far as it goes except that the authority can choose how it gives that notice. The amendment affects that point. For example, it appears that the authority could, if they wished, not tell an owner or occupier that they were proposing to show as a byway open to all traffic, including motor vehicles, a way which is shown in the draft order as being only a footpath. In other words, it appears that if they have given the owner-occupier notice of the draft proposal saying that they are going to put a footpath across that field, they can then change that to being one of those terrible RUPPs without giving the owner-occupier any notice of the fact. Of course, had they given the owner or occupier notice of that fact, there would undoubtedly have been an objection raised. But that opportunity to object will have been by-passed—if that is the right way of putting it.
Alternatively, the authority might fail to keep the public fully informed of a proposal to show only half of the paths, for example, shown in a draft order, and leave the others out so they can modify it to that extent. It does not in any event seem to me that the discretion given by the Bill should be an unfettered one. This view was clearly shared by some noble Lords opposite who put an amendment down on the same point in Committee. Their amendment would have required an owner or occupier to have been notified of any proposed modification. This amendment requires the authority to give such a proposed modification the same publicity as the original order. In other words, it would give what noble Lords opposite wanted for owners and occupiers but would also ensure that the public receive the same publicity as they would have done in the original order.
This is something which so directly affects either the rights of an individual landowner or farmer or alternatively the rights of the public—and there is equal concern in this—that it should not be left to the discretion of the authority, which is the case in the Bill. There really ought to be a requirement for equal publicity to that given to the original order. Again, this was an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said he would like to look at. I hope that his consideration has led him to agree that this is a desirable amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I said in response to the identical amendment moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I thought authorities should have the discretion to apply whatever publicity they considered suited the particular circumstances. I was certainly willing to have another look at this matter. I have done so. I fear, however, that I still do not believe that authorities in the exercise of this discretion would act in any way that would be detrimental to the interests of landowners, farmers, or the users of rights of way. If modifications are likely to adversely affect the interests of landowners, I am confident that they will be notified accordingly. Likewise, I would expect users to be notified whenever their interests are affected. All this would be in addition to publicity in the local press and notification to the original objectors to the order.
However, if it would satisfy the noble Lord—if it would be of help—I shall be prepared to undertake to include in any circular that is published on the implementation of the new system guidance on what would constitute acceptable publicity for modifications. I realise that that does not go as far as the noble Lord might have liked. We looked at the matter, as I said we would. It would take us as far as we need to go because I do not believe that there is a need for that. However, I recognise, to the extent that the noble Lord has made his point, that we should like to try to meet it and do so in that way.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am not happy with that answer. Let us take the case of a landowner or farmer. Everyone so far has attached the greatest importance to their being given personally a copy of the proposal. I do not think anyone has felt up to now that that is something which could be left to the discretion of anyone. A public right of way across a farm—and I speak as a farmer, a rambler and a walker—is an important matter. It can lead to considerable inconvenience from a farmer's point of view, and possibly some additional costs in fencing, stiles or what-have-you. From the user's point of view these are again very important matters. If the noble Lord is saying: "This seems sensible; we will put it in a circular" then something as important as this ought to be in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, moved an amendment to this effect, so far as the owners and occupiers are concerned, at the Committee stage. Therefore, there is widespread agreement that this is an important point. It ought to be in the Bill and the Government should accept that. Clearly, the noble Lord has gone some way to meet the point; but I do not see what the value of leaving it to the discretion is.

593
Unless the noble Lord can help me with why it should not be in the Bill, if this is sensible and fair to all concerned, I think I should press the amendment.
8.40 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 173SCG) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Content, 38; Not-Contents, 54.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 173SCGA and 173SCGB:
Page 80, line 12, leave out from ("withdrawn") to end of line 15, and insert ("notify the Secretary of State and the provisions of paragraph 4 shall thereupon apply")
Page 80, line 17, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these two amendments together.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am very glad to accept these amendments.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173SCGC:
Page 80, line 38, leave out from ("given") to end of line 41 and insert ("—

(a) by publication in the manner required by paragraph 2(2)(a);

(b) by serving a like notice on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 2(2)(b) or (3); and

(c) by causing like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices required to be displayed under paragraph 2(2)(c).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SCH:
Page 80, line 47, after ("of") insert ("publication of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment affects the wording of something which was introduced at the Committee stage of the Bill. Therefore, unlike most of the other amendments, this is not something that we have been through already. The amendment would make the period which is needed run from the date of publication of a notice rather than from some other period. I shall not go into it at any greater length, in the hope that this is a straightforward amendment which the Government can accept. If not I should be happy to explain it in more detail. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is no apparent reason for differentiating between definitive map orders and public path orders as regards the commencement of the six-week period and the question of validity of the orders in the courts. I am pleased to accept this amendment.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 173SCHA and 173SCHB:
Page 81, line 12, leave out ("or a parish or community council") and insert ("a parish or community council or the parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council")
Page 81, line 14, at end insert—
("prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under this Schedule shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to both these amendments already, and I beg to move.
Clause 43 [No further surveys or reviews under the 1949 Act]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 173SD:
Page 37, line 35, leave out from first ("authority") to end of line 38 and insert ("and subject to subsections (1A) and (1B) below—

(a) decide to complete his determination of any outstanding objections or representations; or

(b) agree with the authority to transfer those objections and representations to the authority for determination.

(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall cause either the Secretary of State or a surveying authority to take any further action after the commencement date on any objection or representation which relates to the reclassification of a road used as a public path or as to which the person who made the objection or representation has informed the Secretary of State or the surveying authority, as the case may be, that he agrees that no further action should be taken with regard to that objection or representation.
(1B) Where any objection or representation is transferred by the Secretary of State to a surveying authority under subsection (1) above, the authority shall determine the objection or representation as if it were an objection or representation to an order made under this Part, and paragraphs 4 to 9 of Schedule 12 shall thereupon apply.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to something which my noble friend Lord Fletcher introduced at the Committee stage. The effect of this amendment is to require all the outstanding objections to definitive maps to be heard either by the Secretary of State or by the surveying authority, except where the objection relates to the reclassification of a road used as a public path or where the objectors agree that no further action need be taken.
As I understand it there are, at present, some 15,000 objections outstanding, and although the exclusion of roads used as a public path in reclassification cases would reduce that number considerably, it would still leave several thousand objections which result from claims often made many years ago. It seems to me to be unjust on those who made those objections to say to them now, as is, in effect, said under this Bill, "Because the department has failed to give a hearing to your objection, it is going to be allowed to disregard it altogether." Furthermore, what the Bill allows the department to say to one of the thousands who have had an objection lodged for, perhaps, many years, is "If you want to pursue the matter, you will have to persuade the surveying authority to make a new order."
That seems to me to be rewarding past inefficiency. The Government are, in effect, saying "The department has failed over a number of years to deal with all these objections, so we are just cancelling them out", and the poor objectors will have to start again, which does not seem to me to be very fair. I should make the point that the fact that the objections have not been heard is no criticism of this Government. These objections have been outstanding during the period in office of several Governments of both parties. So it is not a criticism from that point of view. But it seems a bit much at this stage to say, "You have had your objections on the books for years, but I am afraid that this Bill cancels them and you will have to start all over again". Noble Lords who have been listening on the radio to the adaptation of Little Dorrit will recognise the Circumlocution Office's hand in this kind of proposal. You object, you wait for years and then, before you get anywhere, you have to start all over again.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to transfer disputed cases to a surveying authority, by agreement with that authority, and the authority would deal with those cases using the procedure in Schedule 12. This would allow authorities to deal with new claims at the same time as processing the outstanding, transferred cases, if they wanted. It would therefore
596
be simpler and easier for the authorities concerned and, I hope, fair on the objectors. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, in my opinion, this is one of the two key amendments in Part III of the Bill. We discussed this at considerable length in Committee, so I shall not go into it in great detail. But one has a great deal of sympathy, as I said earlier, with the position of these 15,000 objections and the fact that the Secretary of State is able to deal with only 800 a year. But what has been done is simply to pass the buck, regardless. The Government have even gone so far as to talk about savings which they will make in Whitehall. What they are doing is putting the work back, if it is to be done at all, on the county councils. We know that today they are extremely tight on finance. We may therefore conclude that the work will not be done, and that a lot of people who have spent a great deal of money on the cases will find that money wasted.
What we said earlier was that it is a difficult problem and we have great sympathy with the Government. But the Bill, as it stands, is simply not good enough. There are various solutions and this is one of them. I earnestly hoped that the Government would come back at this stage with something a little more forthcoming than simply passing the buck to the local councils. It appears that the Government have not done that. I hope that they will still consider this problem earnestly, even if they fail to accept this amendment tonight, because, as things stand, this just is not good enough.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, I think that I made the case for this amendment at the Committee stage, as the Minister will remember, and I hoped that, as a result of what I and my noble friend had said, the Minister would see the strength and force of our contentions. May I therefore repeat the complaint in a nutshell? There are a number of pending objections which have yet to be brought to a final conclusion. A number of people have made representations to local authorities and those representations have been passed on to the Minister. They are at certain stages and it is recognised in the Bill that there is power to abandon all those reviews.
The Minister gave me an assurance at the Committee stage, as he will remember, that, where a review had reached an advanced stage, where a great deal of work had been done on it and representations had been made, that work would not be wasted, the review would be completed and, if necessary, an inspector would be appointed to deal with the complaints and to hear objections. I accepted that assurance—indeed. I accept it now—but there is no machinery in the Bill, as it stands, to ensure that some outstanding objections which have reached an advanced stage will not be abandoned.
I do not particularly mind whether the Minister says, "Let the department deal with them under the present procedure", or "Let the local authority deal with them under the Bill". Either would be preferable to their complete abandonment, making people start all over again. I should, of course, prefer that the department finished the job under the old procedure

597
and I do not think there is much practical difference between the department appointing an inspector and the local authority appointing an inspector. I say that particularly because we have recently in this House passed an amendment which ensures that the local authority will not have the last word. Therefore, I should be happier if this amendment were accepted by the Government. But I would, at least, ask the Minister to repeat the assurance that reviews which have reached an advanced stage will not be abandoned, and that there will be some procedure to enable them to be completed.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised, in view of your Lordships' acceptance of the Government's proposals for dealing with objections and representations to proposals that would lapse on the abandonment of outstanding surveys and reviews, that it has been felt necessary to go further with this amendment. Since the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has chosen to do so, I obviously cannot avoid drawing to your Lordships' attention the inadequacies and the serious implications which it would have for the introduction of the new review procedure within those counties and former county borough areas with reviews and surveys outstanding.
The two amendments are incompatible to the extent that this one would completely undermine the Government's proposals since they are linked to the abandonment of surveys and reviews. Moreover, a principal objective of revising the review procedures was to break out of the impasse that has bedevilled reviews for years and thereby enable a fresh start to be made. Without the power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to direct abandonment of existing reviews, which the amendment seeks to remove, this would be impossible in those counties with reviews outstanding. Since to all intents and purposes the amendment contemplates the completion of outstanding reviews it would jeopardise, in some instances for several years, the introduction of the new procedures for the simple reason that until all the outstanding objections had been resolved there would be no suitable revised definitive map and statement available to modify.
There are in particular two drawbacks to the amendment which spring immediately to mind. The first concerns the transfer of objections and representations to authorities for determination. To my mind it is essential that it should make provision for giving effect to those proposals in draft revisions to which there were no objections or where objections have been dealt with by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Subsections (3) and (4) of the clause do not help in this respect since they are linked to the abandonment of reviews.
Secondly, objections to the omission of something from draft revisions are in many instances invalid. The reason for this is that reviews are concerned with events such as the discovery of evidence that occurred during the relevant period; that is, the period covered by the review. Since the evidence to support these objections was never discovered—in other words, brought to the notice of the review authority—during the relevant period and considered by them, it follows that the objection does not relate to a specific decision
598
on the part of the authority not to propose something in the draft revision, and must therefore be invalid. I accept that this is a technical point but it was one of the reasons why the Government rejected as impracticable the notion of transferring objections and representations to authorities for determination.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, is concerned, again I repeat gladly what I said in Committee. I certainly confirm that where reviews have reached an advanced stage they will not be abandoned. What we have to resolve is the procedure for ensuring that this is so. The noble Lord probably does not expect me at this moment to give him that, but I certainly repeat the assurance which I gave before.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I shall not press the amendment. I should like to study in Hansard what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said. He made some points which either I was not aware of, or should have been aware of but was not—one or the other. I should like to ask him a question to which I do not expect an answer now. If, however, the noble Lord could write to me it would help me to get the matter into perspective and might be of assistance in supporting his own case. If not, it would at least get the extent of the problem clear.
There are roughly 15,000 objections outstanding, as I have already said. Removing the exclusion of RUPP reclassification cases still leaves, I understand, a few thousand cases outstanding, or several thousand. I am not sure how many. I dare say that the department could make a more educated guess than I about that number. The noble Lord then gave a very helpful assurance to my noble friend, that in those cases where reviews have substantially been completed or have gone a long way towards completion the intention is to continue with them. The question which I should like the noble Lord to consider and to write to me about is this. How many objections are we going to be left with, at the end of all that, which will fall? Out of the 15,000 or so it may be that there will be comparatively few. It sounded a tremendous number to start with, but the RUPP reclassification cases remove a large number of them. Then the Government's intention is that a number of these reviews should be completed. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree to let me know what information he has on that point. Again I see the noble Lord is nodding, so I assume that he will do so. I will study what the noble Lord has said. I am grateful to him for the care he has taken in replying to the amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 38, line 11, after ("representations") insert ("or objections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment which is necessary to rectify an omission and thus ensure consistency in the expressions used in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 174YA:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals on claims for definitive map amendment and road users public path reclassification orders
.—(1) Where any person submits a claim in writing to an authority alleging that the authority should make an order

(a) to modify the definitive map and statement as a consequence of the occurrence of an event specified in subsection (3)(b) or (3)(c) of section 41;

(b) to reclassify a road used as a public path in accordance with section 42;

(c) to modify the map and statement prepared under subsection (2) of section 43;

the authority shall consider the claim and shall notify their decision thereon in writing to the person making the claim.
(2) Where a claim has been submitted to an authority under subsection (1) above, and either—

(a) the authority has notified the claimant that they do not propose to make the order, or

(b) a period of twelve months has elapsed from the date of submission of the claim without a decision thereon having been notified by the authority to the claimant,

the claimant shall have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State, in deciding that appeal, may direct the authority to make such orders as appear to him requisite in consequence of the claim:
Provided that any such appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of the notification by the authority of their refusal to make an order or the expiration of twelve months from the date of submission of the claim, as the case may be, and that the provisions of this Part shall apply to any orders made by the authority in compliance with such a direction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very similar point to the one—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. In the light of the decision on the transfer of jurisdiction that we resolved before the break, I ought to say straight away that we shall want to look again at this point.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I was just going to say that I think this really is the same point. When the noble Lord says that he would like to look at it again, do I take it that the Government do not want it to be put into the the Bill tonight but that they will come forward with an amendment at Third Reading? Or is the noble Lord not going quite so far as that? Or would be not mind it going into the Bill now so that he can look at it at his leisure when the Bill is printed? As the noble Lord says that the same principle is involved, I should have thought that this amendment would now be acceptable to the Government. Therefore, I beg to move it formally.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, exactly how far along those several paths to which the noble Lord pointed I can go I am not at the moment absolutely certain. The point I was trying to make, in an attempt to save the noble Lord going into a lot of detail, was that the decision which has been made clearly alters the stance that otherwise I should have taken. Obviously I need to consider and to discuss the proper way to deal with the matter before the next stage.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, that is very helpful. I am sure all of us will be very grateful to the noble Lord. We had a formidable and indeed an unstop-able array of speakers and arguments ready had the noble Lord not said what he has, so it has certainly speeded everything up. No doubt the noble Lord
600
will bear that in mind in deciding exactly what amendment to put down at Third Reading. I hope we can expect one; otherwise, it is only fair to all of us who wished to argue strongly on this point to say that we shall come back with this amendment at Third Reading. But no doubt it will not be necessary for us to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 174 YB not moved.]
Clause 45 [Supplementary provisions as to definitive maps and statements]:
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 174Y BA:
Page 41, line 6, at end insert—
("(6) The surveying authority shall be under a duty to sell copies of any map and statement prepared under subsection (2) above to the public at such reasonable charge as they may determine.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. The idea is that the public must be able to obtain copies of the definitive map when a clean copy has been prepared. From a legal point of view statements must also be available and a reasonable charge could be made for both. It seems to me unrealistic to imagine that the general public should always have to visit the council offices to obtain the information or that legal advisers should have to bring their quill pen and make manuscript copies of the statement.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to go some way towards meeting this because I think it is not enough to say that the local councils will of course do this. With all the pressures of work, unless there is something in the Bill to encourage them to do so I do not think it will happen. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to add to what the noble Viscount has just said something about ordnance survey maps. In replying to a similar amendment at the Committee stage, the noble Lord the Minister relied to some extent on the existence of ordnance survey maps and their availability to the public. At the Committee stage on 19th February this year, at column 801 of the Official Report, the Minister said:
"the current series of 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 … maps distinguishes between public rights of way and other unsurfaced tracks".
That is the case for 1:50,000 maps but it is only true for the second series of the 1:25,000 maps, and that second series at the moment covers no more than one-quarter of England and Wales, so we are left with three-quarters of England and Wales covered only by the first series of the 1:25,000 maps, and they do not show public rights of way at all. So, for three-quarters of England and Wales, the 1:25,000 maps do not show public rights of way.
Definitive maps—the maps which the noble Viscount and the other noble Lords whose names appear on this amendment want to see being sold by local authorities—are normally produced at a scale of either 1:10,000 or 1:5,000. So, in an area where the second series is not available—in other words in the three-quarters

601
of England and Wales covered only by the first series—the definitive map will be the only map at a scale other than 1:50,000 which shows public rights of way. That is an important point because the 1:50,000 maps do not show field boundaries, and certainly the ordnance survey maps which most people buy do not show the actual field boundaries. It is impossible for somebody wanting to find out the exact route that a path takes to do so on a map which does not show field boundaries. One simply has to have the field boundaries to see exactly where the map goes. The 1:50,000 map is good enough for a walker, particularly one following an established footpath where the line will be fairly clear and there is some signposting, but one must have a map which shows field boundaries in order to be sure of the exact route, and that is why the definitive maps are so important. Ordnance survey maps are really no substitute.
There are two other points about definitive maps which support their being on sale by local authorities. In the first place, as I understand it, they are the only maps which number footpaths, and, in any correspondence between interested groups and the local authority, it is obviously very useful to be able to refer to a footpath by a reference number, much as one would a metalled road. The definitive map, as I understand it, is the only way in which one can discover the number which has been assigned to a particular path. The numbers do not appear on ordnance survey maps.
The second additional point I wanted to make is that definitive maps have a statement accompanying them which, if this amendment were accepted, the local authority would put on sale with the map. As I understand it the statement itself can be very useful indeed for those concerned with public rights of way and public paths and, again, the only way one can get the statement is to buy it from the authority.
As we said at the Committee stage, this is not something which will have expenditure implications, because the idea is that the authority will sell the definitive maps at the full cost which it takes to produce them, and I do not think anyone will complain about that. However, I really do not think that the noble Lord's offer of a circular is sufficient, because of the enormous importance of having these definitive maps available. If they are not available lot the use of the public who are interested in this, they cannot fall back on anything else. There is no other source of the statement, there is no other source of the numbers, and, in a large part of the country, there is no other source of the exact line of a public right of way apart from the definitive map. It is probably more important than I think was made clear in the debate at Committee, from our side anyway. I hope that, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, the Government will now accept this small but important point.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as regards the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made, I did say in Committee that I did not believe that it should be mandatory for authorities to place copies of the definitive map on sale to the public. Nevertheless, I was and am prepared, as I indicated in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, last week, to suggest to authorities that copies should be available for purchase. I
602
certainly undertake that I will bring it to their notice in the most appropriate way.
The other points that the noble Lord makes are of interest. I am particularly interested in the point he makes as to the non-availability from any other source. I should like to take that away and think about it again. We will perhaps also take up the noble Viscount's point, because if we are to do anything in some other way we may as well do it together.
What we are reluctant to do is to place a mandatory duty to authorities. While I take the point that, hopefully, they would not incur any expenditure, nevertheless the less we impose in a mandatory way the better. Having said that, I think that there is certainly much merit in the point about availability from somewhere, and I should like to look at that. If the noble Viscount would feel able to leave that with me for a little longer, I shall undertake to see what we can do.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that reply. I do realise the problem of making these things mandatory, particularly if for some perfectly good reason the county council in fact breaks the law. Anyway, I thank the Minister very much for the way he has considered this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 174YC:
AIter Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Power to make temporary closure for preserving or enhancing the surface of a right of way
. In the Highways Act 1980, after section 122, there shall be inserted the following section:—
"122A.—(1) A highway authority who are reasonably convinced that a right of way within their area requires relief from equestrian traffic in order that its surface may be preserved or enhanced may, subject to the provisions of this section, close that right of way to such traffic for a period not exceeding six months.
(2) Before closing any such right of way on authority shall have regard to

(a) the availability of alternate routes, and

(b) the desirability of avoiding trespass on to land adjacent to the right of way.

(3) Nothing in this section shall permit a highway authority to prevent the exercise of any right specifically granted by the occupier of the land over which the right of way runs.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an amended version of one I moved in Committee to allow local authorities to control horses on bridleways which have become unsuitable for horses. This amendment takes into account the reservations that were made in Committee, strictly limits the time that a bridleway should be closed to six months, and takes into account the availability of alternative routes. This would encourage the very thing that I believe has been sadly missing in this part of the Bill, which has been undertaken in a small way by the Countryside Commission in Lincolnshire, which is to actively encourage unofficial and non-voluntary rights of way being arranged between the farmer and the walker or the rider. This is, in my opinion the obvious way forward, and, to be slightly cynical, is perhaps why we have not discussed it at all. It would encourage the farmer to negotiate with riding establishments and walkers temporary diversions. My noble friend Lord

603
Renton stated in Committee that my amendment would not enhance the enjoyment of the countryside for pedestrians. I ask him to look at bridleways, some of which are so badly destroyed in wet winters that hardly horses, let along walkers, can use them. That then encourages the walker to move along the side of the bridleway, which creates a trespass and brings about the very thing we do not want, irritation between walker and farmer. The Spicer Committee has recommended that my original amendment be accepted, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, told the Committee, the Government only have such committees in order not to accept their recommendations. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there is provision under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 for highway authorities temporarily to prohibit by order the use of a road by vehicles and pedestrians. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to introduce somewhat similar provisions for equestrian traffic on rights of way by a new clause in the Highways Act. His proposal makes no provision for the temporary prohibition to be by an order, or for any notice to be given.
The Spicer Committee advised us on 17th February that the committee were agreed on the proposal that traffic regulation order powers be extended to cover equestrian traffic, and this, of course, would cover aspects other than temporary prohibitions. The Government accept that the present position whereby there are no provisions for TROs to regulate the use of highways by equestrian traffic is anomalous, but if we were to accept anything on the lines of this amendment we may be creating further anomalies.
Although this amendment has been confined to rights of way, we still consider that the control of equestrian traffic is a matter for general highways legislation, as I indicated during the Committee stage, and I hope that it will be possible for appropriate amendments to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and the Road Traffic Act 1972 to be included in a suitable Bill in the next Session. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment. Should he not wish to do so, I hope, all the same, that he will withdraw the amendment but let the Government table something at the next stage.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is thinking about that, I should like to make a couple of points. I am certainly well aware of the problem at which Lord Stanley's amendment is aimed. It is true that some bridleways can become completely impassable for walkers and, as the noble Lord said, very nearly impassable for horses during some months of the year.
If the Government are to look at the matter again, I should like to raise a couple of matters that have worried me about the amendment as drafted. First, I could not see any provision for notification to equestrians that would be affected by this. I could not see any requirement for a warning or consultation before an order is actually issued—it could simply be slapped on without any warning. I should have thought that there ought to be some procedure for telling people what is going to be done because, after all, a riding school's livelihood might be quite depend
604
ent on the use of certain bridleways, particularly if they are near the school and provide the only access out of the vicinity of the school. For such bridleways to be closed for six months could be a real hardship.
One could think of other circumstances where an equestrian right of way might be very important. I suppose that some noble Lords opposite might be concerned about a hunt having a right of way down a certain track or not. There are other examples that one could quote. There should be some procedure for consultation beforehand or at least some notification. Whether there is or not, I think that there should be some procedure for appeal against a closure particularly if, so far as I can see, these closures for six months could be continuous. My understanding is that when this sort of proposition has been put forward previously, there has been some requirement, for example, not to close something for more than three years out of five or something like that. So far as I can see from the noble Lord's amendment, it could be a six-month period continuously, for ever, and one could effectively close an equestrian right of way by that means.
If the Government are to look at this matter again, I wonder whether they could consider if the period of six months is possibly a little long. If these rights of way become very muddy and impassable during the winter, I should have thought that three or four months ought to see us out even in a very wet winter as we have recently experienced. After all, I should have thought that it would not have been necessary to close a bridleway until the end of December or January when the weather started to become bad. That would have taken one through February and March into the beginning of April when I think everyone in the countryside hopes that we shall have drier weather. I should have thought that three or four months at the outside was long enough.
Secondly, I wonder whether there ought to be some requirement during this period for somebody to look at the right of way and carry out some repairs if necessary. Whether that should be done by the local authority or somebody else or whether it should be done voluntarily, I do not know. However, there should at least be some nudge in the direction of putting the state of the path to rights during the period in which it is closed. After all, it would be a bit much if it were closed to horses, but some vehicles continued to use it and at the end of the six-month period it was more churned up than it had been at the beginning. I do not say that that last point is vitally important, but there are some important points which it would be worth having the Government consider. As I say, basically, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord in his amendment, but I should not like to see this exact wording in the Bill.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in the suggestions that he has made. I think that the period of six months is too long and that three months would be far better. I support everything that the noble Lord has said. I also find favour with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley. It is a fact that if, in heavy weather, many horses go along a small bridleway, that bridleway can be turned into a

605
quagmire. I should like to repeat that I think six months is too long to close it; and, of course, the point about notification is essential.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. I must say that I feel as though I cannot do right. I tried Spicer, and there was one reason; so I listened to your Lordships and I changed it, and I am still wrong. I suppose that it is my fault for trying to change Spicer. However, of course, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised are valid, but I cannot resist telling him that earlier on when we accused his drafting of being slightly defective, he said "Oh, it does not matter about the drafting; it is the principle that matters". That is what I say to him now. It is the principle that I am still trying to establish. I accept the points that he made and those made by my noble friend Lord Massereene. Yes, perhaps six months is too long.
I could not quite understand what my noble friend on the Front Bench was saying, but I should like to move this amendment as a matter of principle, and if the Government do not want it then let them throw it out on Third Reading. I do not mind; I shall not lose any sleep over it. But it seems that we are sitting here doing very little at the moment. I am sorry; I should have said that I am doing very little. I leave it at that.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, sits down, if he presses his amendment now then quite honestly I must say that my objections to it are rather more than drafting objections. Six months and three months are points of substance, not of drafting. Personally, I would object to dividing the House on the amendment. I thought that the noble Earl went all the way to meet him when he said that the Government would come back with an amendment on Third Reading. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, had done a great deal of very good work in this amendment and had achieved his point, and might leave the matter at that.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.27 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 174ZA:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Signposting of byways open to all traffic
.—(1) In section 27 of the 1968 Act (signposting of footpaths and bridleways) for the words "or bridleway", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "bridleway or byway"; and for the words "and bridleways" in subsection (6) of that section there shall be substituted the words "bridleways and byways".
(2) After subsection (7) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(8) In this section "byway" means a byway open to all traffic, that is to say, a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, moved on amendment during the Committee stage on 19th February it was indicated that the Government were sympathetic to extending the signposting and waymarking provisions of the 1968
606
Countryside Act to "roads used as public paths", or RUPPs, and to "byways open to all traffic", and would introduce their own amendment.
As regards RUPPs, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out that these are due to be phased out, and we have given further consideration to whether in the circumstances we ought to extend the Section 27 provisions of the 1968 Act to them. If we did so it would in particular place a statutory duty on highway authorities to erect at every place where a RUPP meets a metalled road a signpost showing the "road used as a public footpath" specifically as such. We do not feel that we ought to be placing such a duty on authorities, bearing in mind that any such sign erected would not be able to show what actual rights existed and would have to be replaced by a different sign after the "road used as a public footpath" is reclassified. As the criteria for RUPP reclassification have been reduced to one simple test, we would hope that the reclassification exercise could be completed relatively quickly, and not be a lengthy process, as feared by the noble Lord.
In the circumstances, we have confined our amendment to extending the Section 27 provisions to byways open to all traffic only. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 174ZAB:
Subsection (1), at end insert—
("(1A) In section 27 of the 1968 Act (Signposting of Footpaths and Bridleways) after the word "notices" there shall be inserted the words "or waymarks" and after the word "notice" there shall be inserted the words "or waymark"."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am of course grateful to the Government for having brought forward an amendment of their own to meet one of the objectives contained in my amendment at the Committee stage; namely, to extend the highway authorities' signposting powers to byways. I can understand the Government's reluctance to accept one of my further aims, which was to change the power of the highway authority into a duty to erect and maintain signposts. I imagine that that has not found favour on the basis of potential cost, and I am quite prepared to accept that. However, I do want to return in this amendment to the question of waymarking and the overdue acceptance in legislation of this term. I was interested to hear the noble Earl use the term a few minutes ago. But the present position is given in Section 27(7) of the Countryside Act 1968, which reads:
"In this section (and in the amendments made by this section and in other enactments) references to signposts should include references to other signs or notices serving the same purpose".
There is no mention of waymarks.
My Lords, in my submission, this would normally be interpreted to cover only free-standing metal signs or wooden signs nailed to some surface, such as a tree, a fence, or a gate. But, as I pointed out at Committee stage, perhaps the most useful, most economical and least unsightly method of indicating the line of a country path, bridleway or by-way is by use of a painted arrow on an existing surface, whether natural or artificial. That is very widely known as a waymark.
The Countryside Commission has prepared a very simple colour-coded system of arrows devised by a committee representing farmers and landowners, local authorities and amenity organisations. These arrows

607
are usually applied by means of a stencil and have become standard practice in most areas where way-marking is used. I am not entirely happy that this type of sign is covered by the wording of the Countryside Act as it now stands, and, in view of its wide acceptance as a valid and easily understood term, I believe that the time has come for waymarking to make its debut on the Statute Book.
There is really no question here of serious additional cost, because, as I explained at Committee stage, way-marking is an activity almost entirely undertaken by voluntary groups with the encouragement or permission of the highway authority and the consent of the landlord. It makes use almost exclusively of natural or other existing objects. Furthermore, it is hard to see how any wardens of footpaths who might be appointed by a local authority—and I see that we have an amendment later on the subject of wardens—would be able to carry out their task satisfactorily without using way-marks.
I do not want to detain the House any longer on a point of detail, but I believe that this is a significant detail and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept my amendment to the Government's amendment in the helpful spirit in which it is intended, or will be able to offer one of his own to cover the case if he finds mine defective. Of course, he may prefer to assure me that waymarks are covered by the phrase "other signs or notices serving the same purpose", though personally I believe that the actual inclusion of the term "way mark" is overdue, and would help to encourage a very useful practice. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I do so for two reasons—first, for the same reason as was mentioned by the noble Lord; that there is an amendment later which does suggest the appointment of wardens to assist the users of paths. The proposed amendment would be complementary to that. The two would fit in together extremely well. My second reason is that it would be of benefit not only to the users of the paths. It would be of great value to farmers and landowners, because how often does one find oneself walking along a path and coming to a junction, or to a place where the path becomes indistinct, particularly after heavy rainfall, and not quite knowing which way to go? Those who have had the pleasure of walking the fells in the Lake District will know how valuable—in fact sometimes almost indispensable if one has only been there once before, if ever—are the cairns of stones which mark the main route.
This would be a very simple amendment which would be of great benefit to those who use the paths and also in avoiding inconvenience to owners or occupiers of land caused by persons straying off a path because it is indistinct or because there is a diversion where there is no waymark actually indicating the direction in which one should go. I hope that this further amendment will be supported.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, in discussing this amendment
608
to the Government's amendment, may I ask the Minister to explain the grave objections to ambiguity? In discussing waymarks is it suggested that the way-marks should say whether it is a bridle path or a byway? If it is confusing that distinction by saying "bridleway or byway", then I object to it as much as I object to the Government's amendment. But if that is not what this amendment to the amendment is saying, I do not object to it.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, it might be best if I intervene, also, at this particular moment. While I support waymarking and signposting in general, and very much so, I remain opposed to Amendment No. 174ZA itself. It will, I think, encourage motorcyclists, who otherwise would not do so, to come off a road. The clause would lay a duty on authorities to signpost byways where they leave metalled roads. It is very important that there should be a discretion left to authorities as to whether they do this or whether they do not, because of the risk I have just explained. I do not want to ruin the fun for motor-cyclists—and I have had a go at it already today—but it does not seem necessary to give them quite so many privileges under this Bill.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I have no hesitation in speaking on this amendment at all. It is rather confusing. One starts off with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, talking about waymarking. He was then backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, saying how necessary it was when one got off the main road in the middle of nowhere to know where to go. Then my noble friend Lord Moyne and my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton both brought objections straight away.
Surely apart from waymarking these paths should be signposted. I do not know what my poor noble friend who is to reply to all this and to make sense of all this is going to say. In West Sussex there was a splendid gentleman called Mr. James Rammell. In his earlier life he was conservator of forests in Kenya. He invented a post. Sometimes where there was a meeting of the ways of about five or more footpaths—that might be an exaggeration, but certainly three or more—in the middle there the posts were. Waymarking is really not too satisfactory. If waymarking is all that this amendment does, it is doing a very small thing. One wants something rather more than that, which I thought was legislation now. From everybody's point of view, if one gets in the middle of nowhere people should know where they should go.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I ought to indicate that this is an amendment to Section 27, which refers to signposts. It is a question of adding waymarks.
Lord Teviot: I thank the noble Lord.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we seem to have gone a long way off the amendment to the amendment, which is really waymarking. Although the terms "way-marks" or "waymarking" do not appear in Section 27 of the 1968 Countryside Act, the signposting required under subsection (4) to assist persons unfamiliar with

609
the locality to follow the course of a path or way is nowadays usually described as waymarking. The Government are prepared to consider whether any further clarification along the lines of this amendment would be desirable. In view of the interesting remarks from noble Lords opposite, we will of course take into account what they have said. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw this particular amendment. As for my noble friend's comments about signposting at byways open to traffic, I think it would be unfair not to signpost what is a legitimate road, and I cannot see why we should not put a signpost in position for byways.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the
610
Minister for those remarks. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, that at present the system is yellow for footpaths and blue for bridleways; I have no doubt that something else can be devised for byways. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, may care to know that way-marks are no more and no less than an extension of signposting, in which he believes. In view of the Minister's remarks—that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to incorporating the term "waymarking" in the final statute as it emerges—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 174ZA agreed to.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 174ZB:
After Clause 47 insert the following new clause—
("Dogs
.—(1) If, in a case not falling within subsection (2), any person without lawful authority allows a dog to be present in a field or enclosure containing sheep or lambs, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to—

(a) any person acting with the permission of the owner or occupier of the field or enclosure;

(b) any person on a right of way so long as the dog is—

(i) on a lead of reasonable length; or

(ii) under close control;

(c) any blind person; or

(d) any constable acting in the exercise of his duty.

(3) In any proceedings under subsection (1) it shall be a defence to show that the defendant had made every effort to follow the line of the right of way but had been unable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is identical to one I moved in Committee, my Lords, which was designed, first, to protect sheep from dogs and, secondly, to help encourage a good relationship between farmers and walkers. I will not repeat my reasons—they can be found at column 806 of Hansard for 19th February—but I have taken note of the deficiencies raised by noble Lords and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
My noble friend Lord Avon replied sympathetically but implied that the Government would have to consider the other recommendations of the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had drawn attention at that stage, namely, Dogs in Society, about which he reminded your Lordships that the Government had no intention of doing anything in this Parliament; and indeed the last Government did nothing about it either.
I accept completely that that report, with its increased licence fee and identification of dogs, is the answer, but I cannot get such action. Neither can your Lordships. Nor can the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, so I am forced to go for this amendment, which I am afraid is rather a bodged job compared with the report's recommendations. However, if your Lordships will accept it, it may force the Government to do something, if only to return at Third Reading with a better amendment or, better still, the promise of a look at or acceptance of the report Dogs in Society. We cannot continue the needless slaughter of sheep when there is a perfectly simple alternative.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have suffered badly, and I speak as a dog-lover who has dogs. I am glad to say that my dogs are under control, although my wife's are not always. The worst that happened to me in this context was when I had 53 gimmers or tegs—that is, young ewes going to lamb for the first time—killed by dogs. It happened a few years ago and the worst part was that they were not killed outright. Although a few might have been killed straight away, they were badly maimed and all had to be destroyed.
I do not want to stop people coming from the towns to the country with their dogs. The trouble is that many
612
people do not understand that if they are crossing a field by, say, a public footpath and they let their dogs off the lead, if the ewes are in lamb the dogs may not necessarily chase them but just be running around in the field, and the very fact that the sheep see the dogs makes them run. The sheep are frightened and lambing can be affected. I shall say no more, beyond repeating that I wish to support the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think I was virtually the only noble Lord who at the Committee stage had some objections to the amendment that was then moved on this matter, and I must say that the redrafted amendment meets all the objections that I previously raised. As I believe I said previously, I have much sympathy with the problem with which the amendment is designed to deal. I certainly very strongly support the amendment, and I hope that my noble friends will support it, too, if the noble Lord wishes to press it, or needs to do so, though naturally I hope that the Government will accept it.
I have only one query—it is no more than that—and I believe it can be cleared up if the amendment is included in the Bill. It relates to the definition of "field or enclosure". I take it that it is not intended that an offence is committed where someone walks across open moorland or hill land with a dog which is not on a lead, or not even under close control. I take it the offence would arise only in a field or in an enclosure, and I think that, on the whole, the kind of problems to which the noble Viscount referred would occur only in enclosed areas.
The worst cases of this kind are when a dog traps sheep against a fence or in the corner of a field. The dog might maim or injure many of the sheep, while some of the others might be injured in a general scramble to get through, over or under the fence. I do not imagine that the intention is to create an offence in circumstances where someone is walking down an unfenced road in Scotland, with sheep wandering from side to side, as well as over the hills. In such circumstances the proposal would be unenforceable. If the intention is as I assume it to be, I think it would be useful to have a definition of the term "field or enclosure". I imagine that we are all thinking of an area enclosed with a sheep-proof fence. It could be a fairly large area, but it would not cover the whole of a hill or an area of hundreds or thousands of acres.
With that minor qualification I give the amendment my wholehearted support. I hope that it will lead to those who walk in the country with dogs keeping their dogs under proper control. I always keep my dog under proper control. It never chases sheep. In my experience it is simply a question of training dogs properly when they are puppies, whatever type of dogs they are. I also hope that the amendment will make people who encourage dogs to run behind cars realise that they might be involved in a very serious offence if they do not keep their dogs under proper control. As I said at the Committee stage, that is a totally deplorable practice. There is a major educative lesson to be driven home here. This is a very serious matter for farmers. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, but if they do not I hope your Lordships' House will accept it.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment very strongly. As I think your Lordships are aware, I am a hill farmer. Last Thursday night there was a discussion on how to help farmers. I can tell your Lordships that the very worst thing that can happen to a hill farmer is for his sheep to be chased or bitten by dogs, involving perhaps the killing of gimmers, as my noble friend said. This is a very serious matter. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had to say about this. I have only one difference with him. I think that hill land must be included. The real hill farmer probably has only a small proportion of his land enclosed; his biggest flock is out on the hill.
Believe me, my Lords, if dogs are allowed to run about on the hills they can do enormous damage. At lambing time the result can be absolutely disastrous, but even at other times the dogs can cause a tremendous amount of damage. I have given permission to a country school—a school for children who are under the normal school age and who come for a fortnight or so to learn about the countryside—to walk across the hill where there are sheep, but always on the understanding that they do not take along dogs, because in the world of sheep the only dogs that should be allowed are sheep dogs, and no other kind of dogs.
Sheepdogs will not chase sheep unless they have gone mad; and occasionally that can happen; but on the whole we are not talking about dogs and sheep, but sheepdogs. Any other kind of dog, unless absolutely under control or on a lead, is a menace. By far the worst thing that can happen to a hill farmer is for people to be allowed to go over his land with dogs. I beg the Government to accept the amendment. But it must include not only animals in a field but the ones on the hills. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is wrong when he thinks that this applies only to the enclosures; it is nothing of the kind. It applies to the hills just as much. There are far more chaseable sheep on the hills than in the fields. Often the dogs which chase sheep in the fields are seen; but in the hills nobody knows where they are. They can do all the damage in the world. This amendment is extremely important, far more so than any proposal made last Thursday night about how to help the hill farmers. This is a vital matter. I trust the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Collison: My Lords, I have seen what can happen when dogs are let loose in a field. They can do enormous damage. I have seen sheep and lambs killed by dogs. I know, too, of the damage caused when lambing is on and when the sheep are chased by dogs. One cannot always be sure how dogs will behave. I have a vivid recollection when I was a boy of taking for a country walk a collie (a breed often used as a sheep dog) which was bred in town. The dog went berserk when he saw a field full of sheep. He went mad and chased them around. We tried all ways to train him. I am afraid that we used the strap on him to make him realise that he ought not to do it; but we never succeeded. We were never able to take that dog for a walk and let him loose in a field. It is a painful thing to the owner; but I think that the restrictions which the owner is called upon to place on a
614
dog in the terms of this amendment are realistic and sensible, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment moved by Lord Stanley. This is probably one of the most important amendments regarding sheep farming and hill farming. I am very pleased to read in the proposed subsection (2)(b):
"any person on a right of way so long as the dog is … on a lead of reasonable length; or … under close control: …".
It has been my experience, having a right of way which runs through my property, that dogs will come on to that place. I have seen them kill and run wild. I have seen two dogs kill geese and ducks and anything else, and then just flog off. It is really quite unbelievable that people who bring dogs into the country have no idea what the country means to people. It does not seem to mean a thing to them that people get their living off the country and that they should look after and take care of their dogs so that they do not destroy what is a farmer's livelihood. The losses are unbelievable over this area. I hope sincerely the Government will accept this amendment. If they do not accept it, I hope your Lordships will put it in and let them sort it out for themselves.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, as one of the noble Lords who took part last Thursday (making what I hoped would be helpful suggestions about assisting hill farmers but whose suggestions may not have been entirely acceptable to the noble Baroness) I agree with her that that can be undone in a few moments through a failure to be able to enforce what is proposed by this amendment. I hope very much that the Government will accept it.
Lord Burton: My Lords, earlier in this debate there was talk about battle lines being drawn. It seems a wonderful occasion now when the Back-Benches on this side seem to be united with those opposite. I am one of the few who will get up and say that I am not entirely in agreement with this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned a field or enclosure. I have a reference to that in a later amendment. It is not a good definition; he is right on this. There are one or two other problems which arise. I hope that the Government will accept this in principle, because we are all absolutely in agreement on the principle of this issue. If the Government can draft an amendment for Third Reading, this would be most valuable. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree with this.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government, like everyone else in the House, are entirely sympathetic with the intention of protecting sheep and lambs from dog-worrying. There is no doubt about that. But we are of the opinion that the position is adequately covered in England and Wales by the Dog (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which provides for the punishment of persons whose dogs worry livestock on agricultural land, and by Section 9 of the Animals Act 1971, which empowers farmers to defend their livestock against attacks by dogs who worry, or who

615
are about to worry, them.
The noble Baroness mentioned Scotland. This amendment would not cover Scotland. The brief inquiries that I have made tell me that the Scottish law has an even stronger Act than is the case in England and Wales. I should like to add, as I did in Committee when answering the same point, that one of the 10-point slogans of the present country code is concerned with the control of dogs, and hence with preventing attacks on sheep and lambs.
Reference has been made to the 1976 report of the working party on dogs. Arguments put forward by noble Lords on this matter will be carefully considered. The Government regret that they cannot agree to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill being extended to cover this amendment. We feel that it is outside the scope of our discussions. It opens up a number of side issues, some of which have been raised here tonight and which need a lot more thought than we have given them. They are not applicable to this legislation. This is the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and, in the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lords will not press the amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, as one who has not shot his bolt by having spoken before my noble friend spoke, I am very disappointed with that answer. I listened to his argument, as did the whole House. I am afraid that I (and, I think, a few others) shall not be able to support the Government in their view.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to echo that. To say that a Wildlife and Countryside Bill is not the right vehicle for providing protection for wildlife in the countryside seems a most extraordinary answer.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said it was already covered in two Acts.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, we have had another long discussion on this amendment. I am put in a difficult position because I want this amendment very badly, or something in this form, and something in this form I am going to get at some stage. I am raising my voice just like the noble Earl, Lord Avon, did in reply to me. I am probably going to disappoint the House now: I am not going to press the amendment. I still think I am not absolutely right in my drafting, though those who drafted it for me have done a better job than last time. I shall move it on Third Reading. There will be no "ifs" or "buts" about it; I shall get it right.
I am worried about the enclosure point of view that has been raised, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but also the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I shall let the Government off the hook on this occasion. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if I pressed this amendment now I would win it on my head.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I just interrupt the noble Lord? It is not for me to give him advice, but
616
if he wants to get the drafting right I just wonder whether he might consider the fact that if the amendment is in the Bill parliamentary counsel will have to look at it. If the noble Lord takes it away, parliamentary counsel will not have to look at it; and now he has satisfied me that his intention is as I thought it was and not as the noble Baroness seemed to be trying to say, I certainly would be happy to support the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not know, my Lords; that is the trouble! I think that unless your Lordships feel otherwise—and it is entirely in your hands to press it if you wish—I personally would prefer to leave it until Third Reading, because I think I would get it quite right then and I feel sure that I would have your support again.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder if it would help my noble friend to make up his mind if I were to say that I have both prosecuted and defended cases under the present law, and it is pretty effective?
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, from my own experience, may I add to that, that I have succeeded in two prosecutions this year for dogs coming into a field and worrying sheep? In both cases the owners of the dogs were prosecuted by the police. In one case, the dogs were put down, and in the other case, I am not sure what happened to the dogs, but the owners were fined. There is a law against sheep worrying.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I should like to make one last point—
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is Report stage, and we are only allowed to speak once, but—
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I have not spoken at all. That has wasted two minutes anyway! I was going to say that this amendment tends to prevent something happening; in other words, it recommends or insists that dogs should be kept on leads under certain conditions. That is a very different thing indeed from prosecuting after an accident has occurred with a sheep.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Schedule 13 [Orders creating, extinguishing or diverting public rights of way]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 174ZBA, 174ZBB and 174ZBC:
Page 82, line 3, after ("an") insert ("unopposed")
Page 82, line 4, after ("an") insert ("unopposed")
Page 82, line 5, after ("Act") insert ("or, in either case, submit an opposed draft order to the Secretary of State for making").
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 174ZBD:
Page 82, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) In subparagraph (2) of that paragraph—

(a) in paragraph (a) the words "in the London Gazette and" shall be omitted;

617

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words—

"(iv) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate; and"; and

(c) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

(i) at the ends of so much of any footpath or bridleway as is to be stopped up, diverted or extinguished by the order; and

(ii) at such other places as the authority may consider appropriate").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 174ZBE not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 174BF to 174BL:
Page 82, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("(5) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule for the word "confirming" there shall be substituted the word "making" and for the word "confirm" there shall be substituted the word "make".")
line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
("(6) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule for the word "confirm" there shall be substituted the word "make".").
Page 83, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
Page 83, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (8) and insert—
("(8) In paragraph 4(1) of that Schedule for the word "confirm" there shall be substituted the word "make", and for the word "confirmation" there shall be substituted the word "making".").
Page 83, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert—
("(9) In paragraph 5 of that Schedule for the words "submission and confirmation" there shall be substituted the words "and submission".")
Page 83, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (10) and insert—
("(10) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule for the words "order was made" there shall be substituted the words "draft order was prepared" and for the word "confirmed" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "made".").
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 174ZBM:
Page 83, line 21, after ("Schedule") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 174ZBN:
Page 83, line 24, at end insert ("and
(b) in paragraph (b) for the words "a like notice" there shall be substituted the words "like notices" and for the words "the notice" there shall be substituted the words "the notices."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 174ZBP:
Page 83, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) In subsection (1) of section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 (compulsory power for creation of footpaths and bridle-ways) for the words "made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or confirmed by them as an
618
unopposed order" there shall be substituted the words "prepared by them and submitted to and made by the Secretary of State, or made by them as an unopposed order".").
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 174ZC:
Page 83, line 32, at end insert—
(". In subsection (3)(b) of section 116 after "England" insert "and is not a byway open to all traffic, a bridleway or a footpath".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to take Amendment No. 174ZD with this amendment, because it is on the same point. The amendments together would affect the procedure where a highway authority seeks to apply to the magistrates' court for the diversion or closure of a right of way under the provisions of Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980. As the law stands at present, an application under that section may not be pursued if the district or parish council refuse to consent to the making of an application to the magistrates. If, however, the highway authority were to make a public path order to stop or divert a footpath or a bridleway under the provisions of Sections 118 or 119 of that Act, there is only a right of objection for a district or parish council and not a right of veto.
If alternative procedures are to exist in Section 116 on the one hand, and Sections 118 or 119 on the other hand, it seems sensible and acceptable, I hope, in the interests of good management, for the procedures to be made the same so far as possible. The amendments which I am now proposing would alter the existing provisions of Section 116 of the 1980 Act. At present, if a highway authority propose to make an application to the magistrates under Section 116 for an order relating to a highway, they have first to give notice of their proposals to the district council and to the parish council. The authority may thereafter not proceed, if within two months the district or parish council indicate that they have refused consent to the making of the application.
The amendments which I am now proposing would restrict the requirement of the highway authority to give notice of a proposal to the parish council for those highways which are not a byway open to all traffic, a bridleway or a footpath. Under the revised procedure, only the district council would continue to be consulted and the parish council would be taken into account by the district council in deciding its views on the subject.
The second amendment would add an additional provision to Schedule 12 to the Act, which deals with the giving of notice by the applicant for an order under Section 116. The amendment proposed would add an additional requirement that, in the case of a highway which is a byway open to all traffic, a bridleway or a footpath, notice of a proposed application should be given to the parish council. The parish council would therefore continue to be notified of any proposal by a highway authority under Section 116, but would not have a statutory right, as at present, to prevent the making of an application to the magistrates' court by the highway authority.
I moved these amendments at Committee stage and my noble friend Lord Bellwin, in replying for the Government, said that he was interested in anything that would help good management and the simplifica

619
tion of these processes. But he felt that the amendments which I then moved embraced, in addition to public paths and metalled tracks, other classes of highway and, as such, a matter of general highway legislation was involved which the Government would, quite rightly, not wish to extend into the Bill which we are now discussing. The amendments which I have now tabled deal only with byways open to all traffic, bridleways or footpaths. They therefore, I believe, meet this objection and are not concerned with general highway legislation. I believe that they are a simplification of the procedures under this Bill and they do not extend the scope of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment. The noble Viscount said that the parish council's views would be taken into account by the district council. But I cannot help feeling that there would be a possibility of ignoring or overriding a parish council's views, if this amendment were accepted. While we spoke very strongly in favour of a local authority not making the final decision, I do not think that we on this side would have any feelings at all against the views of local authorities and parish councils being able to be expressed. I understand that what would happen if the amendment were accepted is that, if there were a dispute, people would be more likely to end up in court rather than at a public inquiry. Going to court is always much more daunting for most people, other than lawyers, and is very often more expensive than appearing at a public inquiry. It seems to me that there are those two disadvantages to the noble Viscount's amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I say at once that I accept that, unlike my noble friend's previous amendment which we had in Committee, this latest one concerns only a limited range of highways. The problem is that it nevertheless still represents a departure from the general tenor of the Bill, in that it amends a provision which embraces all classes of highway, apart from trunk and special roads. The criticism that it is more akin to general highways legislation is therefore, if not to quite the same extent as previously, still a fair one to make. Furthermore, it is particularly unsatisfactory in so far as it would create an undesirable anomaly between England and Wales, since the power of veto enjoyed by the Welsh community councils would not be lost.
I am also not convinced that the power of parish councils to veto applications to the magistrates is obsolete. Before I would want to consider its repeal I should need to be persuaded beyond all shadow of doubt that it no longer served a useful purpose and that parish councils withheld consent unreasonably. It seems to me that it recognises that parish councils, as the lowest tier of local government, are in their areas very much in tune with local needs and have a useful and effective part to play in protecting the lesser classes of rights of way and, in doing so, the interests of the local community. It is also consistent with other powers that parish councils hold in respect of highways. Nor would I regard the fact that parish councils do not have identical powers in relation to
620
the extinguishment of footpaths and bridleways under Section 118 of the Act as justifying the removal of the power of veto under Section 116.
I listened very carefully to my noble friend, because when we talk of matters with local government implications I know that his own involvement goes back a long way. His view is always something to which I like to listen. My noble friend talks very much from the point of view of the county as a highway authority. As he knows, I speak from experience of a tier which in some ways is the second tier, although it has many more functions at the district level. Now we are also discussing the parish council level. In a way, it is almost ironic that I should stand here defending very much the line of the parish councils. However, in this context it is only right that I should, because they certainly do have a role to play. If we diminished that role we should tend to diminish the strength of local government generally.
Certainly I feel that in this context the case is not made out sufficiently for me to be able to accept my noble friend's amendments. I am wondering whether or not it might be possible to have a further look at the matter to see whether or not there is any degree to which one can meet it, but as it stands now I do not feel able to do so.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I had hoped that I was simplifying the Government's legislation. My aim always has been to simplify it, and I am sorry if I have not done so. There is ample precedent for the district council to take into account the views of the parish councils in its area on the planning legislation which we now have—in particular the control of development. It is the only practical way. To get the views of a parish council one must go through the channel of the district council. I should have thought that it was a very good precedent which could be set. However, if I am accused of driving a wedge between England and Wales at this hour of the night, it is the last thing which I would wish to do. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 174ZCA, 174ZCB, 174ZCC and 174ZCD en bloc:
Page 83, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) In subsection (1) of section 118 of that Act (stopping up of footpaths and bridleways) for the words "made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State or confirmed by them as an unopposed order" there shall be substituted the words "prepared by them and submitted to and made by the Secretary of State, or made by them as an unopposed order ".")
Page 83, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) In subsection (2) of that section for the word "confirm" there shall be substituted the word "make".")
Page 84, line 3, leave out from (""making"") to end of line 4.
Page 83, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) In subsection (1) of section 119 of that Act (diversion of footpaths and bridleways) for the words "made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State or confirmed by them as an unopposed order" there shall be substituted the words "prepared by them and submitted to and made by the Secretary of State, or made by them as an unopposed order".").
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 84, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) In subsection (6) of that section for the words from the beginning to "they" there shall be substituted the words "A council shall not make a public path diversion order unless they" and the words "the Secretary of State or, as the case may be" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to rectify an unfortunate chapter of errors that occurred during the Committee stage. What would appear to have happened was that Amendment No. 535, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and to which he spoke in moving Amendment No. 489, was, for some inexplicable reason, down in the Marshalled List in my name. Consequently when we reached it, I assumed, as it now turns out, erroneously, that I had spoken to it in connection with previous Government amendments to Schedule 13 and therefore I moved it. I am confident that such an error will not occur again, my Lords, and I trust that the House will accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused. The amendment merely substitutes what was in the Bill before Committee stage for what is now in the Bill and, with repeated apologies for any inconvenience caused or for time lost, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing himself a grave injustice. In fact what he did in moving this amendment at Committee stage was to foresee the outcome of the Division before dinner, because this amendment which he put in the Bill was consequential upon the series of amendments which would have returned the decision-making power to the Secretary of State. Now, the House has agreed to that and in fact the noble Lord pre-empted all of us by moving this in Committee. It is now needed in the Bill because it is consequential upon the decision that we took before dinner, so I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and I congratulate him on his foresight.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as indeed it is consequential, of course I do withdraw it now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 175A, 175B and 175C en bloc:
Page 84, line 14, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
("7. In section 120(3) of that Act (exercise of powers of making public path extinguishment and revision orders) for the word "made" in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "prepared", for the word "confirm" there shall be substituted the word "make", and for the words "make the order" there shall be substituted the words "prepare a draft order".")
Page 83, line 28, after ("authority") insert ("or the Secretary of State")
Page 83, line 34, leave out from beginning to (" give ") in line 36 and insert—
("(1) Before a public path creation order, a public path extinguishment order or a public path diversion order is submitted to the Secretary of State for making or made by the authority as an unopposed order, the authority shall prepare a draft of the order and shall").
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 175D:
Page 85, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 3 and insert—
("(3) For sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(3) The notices to be given under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall be given—

(a) by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated;

(b) by serving a like notice on—

(i) every owner, occupier and lessee (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month and statutory tenants within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Rent Act 1977) of any of that land;

(ii) every council, the council of every parish or community council, and the parish meeting of every parish not having a separate parish council, being a council, parish or community whose area includes any of that land;

(iii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority or, as the case may he, the Secretary of State may consider appropriate; and

(c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

(i) at the ends of so much of any footpath or bridleway as is created, stopped up or diverted by the order; and

(ii) in such other places as the authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may consider appropriate."

(3A) After "
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 175E, 175F, 175G and 175H en bloc:
Page 85, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule the words "confirm or" shall be omitted, and in sub-paragraph (1)(b) for the word "made" there shall be substituted the word "prepared", and for the word "confirm" there shall be substituted the word "make".")
line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("(5) In sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph the words "confirming or", "confirm or" and "as the case may be" in both places where those words appear, shall be omitted.")
line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
("(6) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph the words "confirm or" shall be omitted.").
Page 86, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these four amendments en bloc.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 175K:
Page 86, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (10) and insert—
("(10) For paragraph 4 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"4. As soon as may be after an order to which this Schedule applies has been made, the authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) publish, in the manner required by paragraph 1(3)(a) above, a notice in the prescribed form describing the general effect of the order, stating that it has been made, and naming a place where a copy of it as made may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours;

(b) serve a like notice and a copy of the order as made on any person on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(3)(b), (3A) or (4) above; and

(c) cause like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices caused to be displayed under paragraph 1(3)(a) above;

623
but no such notice or copy need be served on a person unless he has sent to the authority or Secretary of State (according as the notice would require to be served by an authority or the Secretary of State) a request in that behalf specifying an address for service."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Segal): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 175L.
[Amendment No. 174ZD not moved.]
Clause 48 [Prohibition on keeping bulls on land crossed by a footpath or bridleway]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 41, line 28, leave out ("footpath or bridleway") and insert ("right of way to which this Part applies").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage on 19th February the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, moved an amendment, the intention of which was to extend the bull control provisions to cover fields and enclosures crossed by byways open to all traffic and roads used as public footpaths. In response I said that this was acceptable to the Government and that we would consider drafting something on these lines for Report stage. The wording used in this amendment namely "right of way to which this Part applies" means, as stated in Clause 49,
"a right of way such that the land over which the right subsists is a public path or a byway open to all traffic".
When Part III of the Bill comes into force, the term "road used as a public path or a RUPP" will apply only to what is shown on the map and statement and not to anything on the ground. What is shown on the map as a RUPP will on the ground be either a public path or a byway open to all traffic. What are shown as RUPPS are therefore embraced within this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I welcome the amendment and perhaps I may stretch the patience of the House by returning briefly to Amendment No. 175L. This was one of the amendments which was consequential on the decision made before supper, and I have a feeling, although I have not had time to study it, that there will be some consequential changes needed to Amendment No. 175K, which has gone in, pre-empting No. 175L. May I ask the Government to look at that? Obviously, I shall look at it before Third Reading, but it would be a great help if they could table the drafting amendment which is obviously needed. I would like to thank the Government for Amendment No. 174A.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 174B:
Page 41, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) If the occupier of a field or enclosure crossed by a bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic, permits a stallion to be at large in the field or enclosure he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
For the purposes of this section "stallion" means any non-castrated male equine animal of two years or over.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment
624
we discussed in Committee. It is an amendment which would seek to prevent stallions from being allowed to run at large in a field or enclosure—and we have already mentioned the phrase "field or enclosure" as requiring definition—through which a bridleway passes. At Committee stage I had a fair amount of support for the amendment. The noble Earl said that he would have a look at it in the light of the fact that it was recommended by the Spicer Committee, and I was rather disappointed to find that he had not put anything down for Report stage. So I have put the amendment down a second time. I should merely like to reiterate what I said in Committee. I suggest that stallions are more dangerous than bulls, certainly where child riders are concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House because I was abroad at the time of the Committee stage. In strongly opposing this amendment I have to declare an interest. I am the owner of four stallions and the biggest stud of Highland ponies in England. This is partly due to the unfortunate decision which was taken in Scotland a few years ago to dispense with the Highland pony stud which was run by the Ministry of Agriculture at Inverness. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke on this matter in your Lordships' House then.
The native breeds of our ponies are part of our natural heritage. They need conserving. I breed Highland ponies for the pleasure of the public who go riding and trekking to enjoy the countryside. With the massive increase in the price of petrol these ponies may now become a necessity for mobility in the rural areas, as they are ideal for both riding and driving. I speak against this amendment today also as president of the National Pony Society and as a vice-president of the Ponies of Britain. Both societies were dismayed when I discussed this amendment with them. Our native pony breeds consist of Dartmoor, Exmoor, New Forest, Welsh, Shetland, Highland, Dales and Fells. There is not big money in these studs, unlike the thoroughbred and show pony world. If this amendment is passed it may make life very difficult for the breeder of modest means.
These ponies are often kept in fields and enclosures on the edge of moors on hill farms. It is unwise to keep a stallion in a field next to the road. The rest of the suitable fields might have a bridleway or public footpath running through them. So what do they do then? Breeders who own stallions have a great deal with which to contend. They have to license the stallions at two years old, which is now expensive. They have to contend with the general public who are sometimes very irresponsible and leave gates open and metal can lids, tins and bottles all over the place which are dangerous to animals. If there were no stallions there would be no animals for the general public to ride and enjoy themselves on. Stallion owners ought to be helped, not hindered. People do not put their stallions in fields or enclosures with public paths or bridleways unless it is really necessary. The problem is that there are now so many public ways on the sort of permanent pastures which are good for ponies to graze. Native ponies are at risk on re-seeded pastures which are too rich and cause laminitis. The more suitable ground is poor and

625
unsuitable for intensive farming.
Apart from owning stallions, I run a riding and trekking centre. We plan the rides carefully. I would not consider a ride going through a field with a stallion. That would be unwise. I suggest that if owners of stallions are unfortunate to have a field which has a right of way running through it where their stallion grazes, then the entrance and exit should be signed with a warning so that the public can avoid that route. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, will not press his amendment.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness in her opposition to the amendment. I should like to point out a very odd feature of the amendment. I do not think that byways can be "gated". If anyone left a stallion in a byway it might go to London!
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I gave this amendment some support in the Committee stage. My noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton knows that it does not apply to hill-land or moorland. There are public roads going through hill-lands and moorlands and one can have, as I have, a herd of Highland ponies out with a stallion. One can have Exmoor ponies and Dartmoor ponies. This does not apply to them; as I understand it, it only applies to anyone turning out a single stallion or two stallions into a small enclosure or field which a public footpath crosses.
When I was very young I used to ride stallions at work. I used to ride three, or four-year old colts at racing stables. I came to the opinion that one was much safer on their backs than on one's feet! I agree that some stallions have very good temperaments. For instance, I mentioned in Committee Arab stallions, but the Hansard writers, through my incoherence, got it all wrong. I said that you never geld the Arab male horse; you ride him as a stallion as they do all over Africa and the Middle East, because he has a very good temperament. They are an exception. Some stallions, especially thoroughbred stallions, can be very nasty.
I would not support this amendment tonight 100 per cent., because I do not think that it is worded correctly. I think, for instance, that when one talks about fields or enclosures one should define the area. One can have an enclosure of 1,000 acres. There ought to be a definition of the area like, for example, five, eight or 10 acres. If we do not have that, I think that it would be absurd to have this as law. I am sorry slightly to disagree with my noble friend Lady Masham because we are both connected with the Ponies of Britain. Nobody who had a vicious stallion would turn it out where there was a public footpath going across a small field, although some people are very foolish. That is just my opinion on this amendment; I cannot support it in its present form.
Lord Burton: My Lords, since the Committee stage I have carried out a good deal of research on this amendment. Noble Lords may wonder why I have such an interest in this particular matter. I have been a district commissioner of the Pony Club for 14 years and naturally, as such, I am most interested in the safety of children riding and also in the welfare of ponies. My researches have revealed that the breed societies
626
have not been consulted on this amendment. Indeed, I gather that such a proposal could virtually end the New Forest breed. There are between 100 and 120 stallions loose in the New Forest every year and, of course, there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people riding among them. I gather that there has been more trouble with the mares in the forest than with the stallions in recent years, although I may say that in both cases the trouble has been negligible.
The Highland Pony Society, which I consulted, was totally opposed to and knew nothing of this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has many Highland ponies and she will know more about the Highland Pony Society than I. The Shetland Pony Society was horrified at any such suggestion, and the chairman said that if it were implemented, the proposal could possibly be ruinous to their society. The National Pony Society—which, after all, is the body which looks after all these breed societies—also knew nothing of the amendment. As the chairman of this society sits on the British Horse Society Breeds Committee, she was able to confirm that the British Horse Society Breeds Committee had not considered this amendment and certainly would have opposed it.
Thus, noble Lords will see that equestrian opposition ranges the whole length and breadth of the country, from North to South. It seems that the brief to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has come from the British Horse Society Rights of Way Committee, having been drafted by a largely non-equestrian body, the Central Rights of Way Committee. My local British Horse Society representative also knew nothing of this amendment. It therefore seems that the British Horse Society is split down the middle and that further consideration should be given to the amendment.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would agree that this amendment would have little effect on blood stock. My noble friend Lord Massereene mentioned blood stock, but I think I would be right in saying that such valuable animals are not left out in fields in such circumstances as they are too valuable. Therefore, this amendment would apply mainly to the pony breeders who are the people most concerned and who are most opposed to this amendment.
I should like to raise one further point. The amendment refers to an enclosure. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just mentioned the question of enclosures, and I think that this term is totally unsatisfactory. There is nothing which specifies what is and what is not an enclosure, and there is nothing which says what the acreage or hectareage—whatever you like to call it—should be. This matter arose recently in regard to deer and the information given was that what was an enclosure or what was not had never been tested in the courts. It could be argued that all land in the United Kingdom is enclosed sooner or later. In view of the above, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I hope that the British Horse Society will give further thought to the matter.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have very little to say from this Bench, except that I ought to add that we have had the opportunity of considering representations that the Spicer Committee has made on the subject, and that committee apparently holds the view that riders can be subject to considerable risk where,

627
for example, a mare is being ridden on a bridleway and a stallion is encountered. But I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, to draw his own conclusions.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I was expecting the attacks that I received and I had, in fact, consulted the British Horse Society this afternoon about them. Its reply was that this has been its policy since 1978. Therefore, I do not quite understand why the breed societies have heard nothing about it. There must be a failure of communication there. However, I think that we must allow the British Horse Society to clear up its own internal worries on this, and it can of course always bring forward amendments in another place. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.35 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 174C:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Ploughing of public rights of way
.—(1) Section 134 of the Highways Act 1980 (ploughing of footpath or bridleway) shall have effect subject to the amendments provided for by subsections (2) to (9).
(2) Subsection (3) (7 day's notice of intention to plough) shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (4) (duty to restore surface of footpath or bridleway), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) not later than 3 weeks from the time when the occupier began to plough the footpath or bridleway, or

(b) if prevented from doing so by exceptional weather conditions, as soon as practicable thereafter,".

(4) In subsection (5) (failure to comply with subsection (3) or (4)) the words "(3) or" shall be omitted, for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding £200" and for the words "subsection (4)", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "that subsection".
(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) A person who ploughs any footpath, bridleway or other highway otherwise than in the exercise of a right to plough it shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £200 "."
(6) In subsection (6) (enforcement of subsections (3) to (5)) for the words "subsections (3) to (5) above as respects any footpath or bridleway" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (4) to (5A) above as respects any footpath, bridleway or other highway".
(7) In subsection (7) (proceedings by parish or community councils) after the words "subsection (4)" there shall be inserted the words "or (5A)".
(8) In subsection (8) (power of competent authority to restore surface of footpath or bridleway) for the words "footpath or bridleway" there shall be substituted the words "footpath, bridleway or other highway".
(9) In subsection (10) (competent authorities for the purposes of subsections (8) and (9)) for the words "footpath or bridle-way", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "footpath, bridleway or other highway".
(10) In section 135(1) of the said Act of 1980 (temporary division of footpath or bridleway ploughed up under section 134) the words "6 or" and "6 weeks or" shall be omitted.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to both Amendment No. 174C and Amendment No. 180D. When the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved his Amendment No. 553 at Committee stage on 19th February (cols.
628
857–8), he referred to a letter sent two days previously to the Secretary of State setting out a number of points of agreement reached by the Spicer Committee concerning ploughing of public rights of way. He asked the Government to consider the agreement carefully and bring forward some kind of amendment at Report stage. In reply, I said that we would certainly be willing to consider suitable amending legislation but that we wanted time to digest the proposals and to be satisfied that the amendments were generally acceptable.
Two of the proposals in the Spicer Committee's letter of 17th February relate to extension of the definition of ploughing to include the breaking up of the surface of the right of way by any mechanical means, and the definition of the "making good" of a path after ploughing. Neither of these proposals was contained in the noble Lord's previous amendment and, as it is evident from further discussions of the Spicer Committee and views expressed elsewhere that there are major reservations on these aspects, we have not included in our amendment any changes on these items.
Three of the proposals contained in the noble Lord's previous amendment and in the Spicer Committee's 17th February letter appear to be generally acceptable, and the Government's amendment implements them. These are, first, the abolition of the requirement for farmers and landowners to give notice of their intention to plough paths—this will relieve farmers and highway authorities of time-consuming paperwork—and secondly, the extension to cover all highways of the power held by highway authorities to reinstate, and recover their costs in doing so, footpaths and bridle-ways which have been illegally ploughed. Thus unmetalled trackways with the status of roads used as public paths, byways open to all traffic and unmetalled country roads would be covered. Thirdly, it is proposed to make it an offence to plough any highway other than in the exercise of a right to plough, whether granted under the Highways Act or not. This would enable prosecutions to be undertaken where headland paths or unmetalled trackways such as byways are ploughed.
The second and third proposals to which I have just referred also implement the recommendations of the Countryside Commission in its letter of 23rd May 1980, following the green lanes study, and will, we hope, assist in the preservation of green lanes.
While on the subject of prosecutions, I think I should mention at this stage that the Spicer Committee were not agreed on a proposal that the power to prosecute for failure to restore paths after ploughing should be extended to individual members of the public—at present only authorities, including parish and community councils, have such a power. This proposal is strongly opposed by the farming and landowning interests, and we have not included such a power in our amendment.
Finally, the Spicer Committee were not agreed on the timescale for reinstatement of ploughed paths. Various proposals have been discussed, including reinstatement on the day of ploughing, but we believe that there will be many instances where this would not be practicable. Where, under the existing legislation no prior notice of intention to plough has been given, reinstatement is required to be carried out within three weeks from the time when the occupier began to plough

629
the path or way. This was the period provided for in the noble Lord's previous amendment, and we have decided to legislate on this basis, but with an "exceptional weather conditions" proviso. My Lords, I commend all these proposals to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 174D as an amendment to Amendment No. 174C:
In subsection (3) leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
("as soon as practicable and in any event not later than 3 weeks from the time when the occupier began to plough the footpath or bridleway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in general the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is very welcome, because, as he said, it implements the discussions which the Spicer Committee have had on this subject. However, my understanding of the time-scale for restoration, from somebody who was present at the Spicer Committee discussions on this matter, is rather different from the noble Earl's.
My understanding is that the Spicer Committee's Rights of Way Committee agreed, on the advice of the local authority representatives present, that restoration after ploughing should take place on the same day as ploughing, except in the occasional case when this proved impracticable.
It is clearly valuable—as the Government amendment does—to get rid of the requirement for farmers and landowners to give prior notification of ploughing of public rights of way because that has proved to be totally impracticable and unenforceable so far as local authorities are concerned, and the Govermnent's amendment does that. But, as it were, the quid pro quo for this, as the user groups saw it, and also in the interests of local authorities, was that the provisions for restoration should be made enforceable, so that local authorities were not first asked to enforce the notification procedure which was unenforceable; but, secondly, they should be asked to enforce a restoration procedure which was enforceable.
It was generally accepted that what would be most sensibly enforceable would be a requirement to restore on the same day as ploughing with a let-out clause which allowed for such things as a sudden snowstorm, or a tractor breaking down, or a river bank bursting and the field being flooded when the tractor driver was in the middle of ploughing it; except for exceptional circumstances like that, which might be allowed to run for three weeks, that in general restoration should take place on the day of ploughing.
This also seems from the farmers' point of view the most sensible procedure. If somebody ploughs a field with a public right of way the sensible thing to do when the ploughing is finished, or ploughing for that day is finished, is to run the tractor along the line of the right of way and restore it in that way. It is normally done nowadays by running a tractor wheel along the right of way and leaving a smooth surface for someone to walk on. The only circumstances I can envisage where that would be difficult, or impossible, are when the tractor breaks down when somebody is half-way through their ploughing or the really appalling weather that suddenly closes in before there is time to restore it, like a snowstorm, or there is a sudden flood. In those circumstances, it might well be reasonable to have a period of
630
three weeks where somebody can put things right.
I do not think this implements the Spicer Committee recommendations. I should be interested if the noble Earl can confirm to me that local authorities are happy with what is in the amendment in that they think it is enforceable. It seems to me to be a nightmare from the point of view of enforcing it. How are they going to know how exceptional the weather has been? How exceptional has it got to be to prevent reinstatement? The Government have misunderstood what the local authorities wanted on the Spicer Committee, which was the same day restoration, except in exceptional circumstances where the existing three week period should remain. I hope that the Government will think about this point again. I beg to move my amendment, which would put this right.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, may I say a word on Lord Melchett's amendment? It seems to me he was speaking purely from the experience of an East Anglian farmer on light land, which they have in Norfolk. In heavy clay this winter it has not been possible to move on the soil for at least six months, and it is now wetter than it ever was. The exceptional weather subsection which the Government have proposed must be allowed, otherwise far more damage can be done by trying to restore a footpath than in leaving it alone.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if it has been impossible to move on the land, it has been impossible to plough the land. Normally when the land is ploughed it is then possible the same day that a tractor has been out ploughing to run over it and restore the footpath.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have even less experience of farming on clay than I thought he had. It is not possible. Having ploughed, you then have to leave it for the winter to dry out in March. If he would like to come and walk on my soil, I will show him what he needs. I would be the last to excuse anyone from ploughing out a footpath, but we really should allow subsection (3)(b) in the Government's amendment in the interests of the good management of footpaths.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, speaking for another part of England, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Ridley has said. In my part of the Welsh border for a couple of months it has been impossible to get anybody on the land. If we had started to plough the footpaths one day, we should still be waiting.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I must first say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it is clear we all agree that after ploughing it is preferable to reinstate on the same day. He asked me about the Spicer Committee. I gather that that committee was not agreed on the timescale for the reinstatement of ploughed paths. Under existing legislation, farmers and landowners are required to restore a ploughed path not later than six weeks from the date of giving notice of intention to plough or, where no notice is given, not later than three weeks from the time the farmer began to plough the path.
Following the decision to omit the requirement to give prior notice, we considered it was reasonable to

631
require restoration within three weeks in most circumstances, but that there needed to be provision for dealing with cases where restoration within the three week period was prevented by exceptional weather conditions. The noble Lord explained that his amendment seeks to remove the "exceptional weather conditions" provision. Although these conditions would have to be "exceptional" and not merely just "inclement", they need to be catered for and we feel they are eminently reasonable. I hope that, on reconsideration, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, would the noble Earl answer the question I explicitly asked him? Are the local authority representatives on the Spicer Committee happy with what the Government have proposed? My information is that they thought it would be totally unenforceable.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I gather they were not happy, but I understand other parties were not happy, either.
Lord Melchett: I hear some of my noble friends saying it is a compromise, my Lords, in that nobody is happy, but I do not think it is. At present farmers are required to reinstate the path within three weeks and there is no excuse for wet weather or anything else. That is the position now, and the only reason why anybody suggested changing that to the time from when you plough—it is six weeks from when you give notice, but you have to give three weeks' notice of ploughing, so it is a bit of a red herring; under the existing law, three weeks from when you plough you must restore the footpath, and no excuses—is that local authorities found it unenforceable. They said, as I understand the position, that the most sensible thing would be that in almost all cases somebody should restore the footpath the day it is ploughed. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, says I know nothing about farming on clay. I should have thought that if the land was dry enough and suitable to be ploughed, be it heavy or light soil, it should be possible to run a tractor over the top of the land once you have ploughed it.
Viscount Ridley: That is not so, my Lords.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if that is not the case then the exceptional weather conditions or some let-out would be available. But it still does not meet the argument I am trying to make; namely, that there should be a provision for restoration which the local authorities are satisfied is enforceable, and I am surprised the noble Viscount does not agree with that. This House should not be approving something which we are asking local authorities to enforce if they think it is not enforceable. After all, they are the people who have to enforce it. I should be happy with a provision which said farmers should restore a path on the day they plough it except in exceptional circumstances, whereupon they should do so within a set period, and I should have thought three weeks would be enough because it has been three weeks by law up to this moment.
Are the Government prepared to look at this again? It does not seem satisfactory to have gone to all the
632
trouble to get the Spicer Committee to look at the matter at the instigation of the local authorities to change something and then to change it to something that will be even less enforceable than what the local authorities started out with. That cannot be reasonable. I am prepared to accept that my amendment is not right and that it would be useful to have provision for exceptional weather, but surely it would be sensible for the Government to try to agree with the local authorities some provision which the authorities accept as enforceable.
I do not see any point in putting something into law which will be even less enforceable than the current position, which is what the Government appear to be doing. I therefore hope the noble Earl will agree to go back and discuss this with the local authority representatives on the Spicer Committee with a view to getting something that is enforceable, and if he will do that I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. Can the Minister give me that assurance?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not understand what the noble Lord is getting at, because in his own amendment he refers to a period of not later than three weeks. He has just said that he would be quite happy to have a proviso about bad weather. I informed him that the Spicer Committee could not agree on this matter, in any case, and so I am not quite sure that I can give an undertaking to make the committee agree in the future.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I may not be making myself very clear, but what I am getting at is that subsection (3)(a) of the Government's amendment, in regard to the restoration of footpaths, should not state "not later than three weeks", but rather
"… wherever practicable on the day that it is ploughed".
My understanding is that that is a provision which the local authorities felt would be enforceable. Then there should be provided an excuse, as there is in paragraph (b) relating to exceptional weather conditions, but that should be limited in time. If it is not, my understanding is that the local authorities feel that it would be unenforceable. After all, it could be claimed that exceptional weather conditions might last for months and months, and that would be far worse than the current position where there is a three-weeks limit. That is what I am getting at.
I do not wish to detain the House for a long time, but this is an important matter of principle. The Government said that they were to implement the recommendations of the Spicer Committee, and I feel that they have not done so. I have made myself clear to the noble Earl. If he will indicate by nodding that he will at least look at this point, and convey what I have said to the local authority representatives on the Spicer Committee, and see what is their reaction, then I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. I do not think that I am asking for very much from the noble Earl. I simply want him to convey this point to the local authority representatives on the Spicer Committee and let me know of their reaction. If he would agree to do that, I should be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, could not the proposal read:

633
"As soon as possible, but not later than three weeks"?
Would not that meet all parties?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, did the noble Earl indicate that he would do as I asked? I gave way to him, and then to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, rather than proceeding to withdraw the amendment, but I am prepared to press it. I feel that I have made a very reasonable request to the noble Earl—simply to convey the point to the local authority representatives, and see what is their reaction. I hope he will agree to do that. If the noble Earl nods to me, I need not give way to him again, but I shall give way to him if he wishes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that the conditions which at present prevail in East Anglia show that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is really quite impracticable, if I may say so, with respect. Consider the position of a farmer who might have ploughed up in mid-February. If he were expected now to reinstate the land, in its saturated state, it would be found that that simply could not be done.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to press the amendment, rather than come back to it on Third Reading, I shall look into it, but I cannot give any undertaking that I can meet the noble Lord's point. I must say that I really do not feel that I can give an undertaking on it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly to Amendment No. 174C, if I may. First, I wish to welcome most sincerely the abandonment of the need to give notice of intention to plough a path. I am sure that we gave the Spicer Committee no end of an agenda after our Committee stage, and we should congratulate it on the enormous amount of work which it must have been doing.
I wish to make only one point about Amendment No. 174C. I do not think that subsection (3)(b) is drafted quite as widely as might be desired. I gather that farmers would favour after the phrase "exceptional weather conditions", the addition of the words, "or other exceptional circumstances". I understand that what farmers envisage here are circumstances such as the outbreak of animal disease, illness of a sole occupier or worker, the need to attend to a sick relative, et cetera. This might occur near the end of a period where conditions were ripe, and it is a point which I would feel ought to be put forward at this stage.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 176A:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Power to require removal of electric fences
.—(1) Where on land adjoining a bridleway there is an electric fence which in the opinion of the local authority for the area is a danger or annoyance to persons using the bridleway the local authority may by notice in writing to the occupier of the land require him within a period of not less than one month from the date of service of the notice to take such action as may
634
be necessary to remove the cause of the danger or annoyance.
(2) A person aggrieved by a requirement of a local authority under the foregoing subsection may appeal to a magistrates' court which may dismiss or allow the appeal or may make such order as it thinks fit.
(3) Subject to any order made on appeal, if a person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) of this section fails to comply with it within the period specified in the notice the local authority may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so from the person in default.
(4) For the purposes of this section "electric fence" means a fence capable of carrying a current of live electricity.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment about electric fences was also discussed in Committee and at that time it was drafted as an amendment to the Highways Act 1980. The noble Lord the Minister rightly said that the Wildlife and Countryside Bill had nothing to do with the Highways Act and he could not accept it. So I said that we would take it away. The British Horse Society had another look at the amendment and they have redrafted it to become a clause in this Bill and they have also reduced its scope by confining it to bridleways, whereas previously, as the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, pointed out, it referred to highways, which will include footpaths—and that is going too far.
What we are asking is that, if an electric fence bordering a bridleway is a danger or an annoyance to persons riding on that bridleway, the local authority shall have the power to serve a notice in writing to the occupier to take the fence down. I did not mention in Committee that we are all the more worried now about electric fences and their effect on horses because quite a number of electric fences are now being connected to the mains. Although, obviously, transformers are in use to reduce the voltage, there is no doubt that these fences are being used now to give a much larger shock to the animal than that from a battery. As I said in Committee, the horse, unlike the cow, is a thin-skinned animal and it is very often iron shod, so the shock from the electric fence will be much more severe and could be quite dangerous in the case of a child rider. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not accept this. The equivalent law on barbed wire does not work well. Cases arise where a walker's loose coat flaps on to the wire; he has heard that this is illegal; he complains; the authority sends out an abatement letter, usually without even being able to check the facts or view the site. It is costly, bureaucratic and a legal tangle. If a fence is an obstruction it should be prosecuted as such. The amendment is unnecessary and it will encourage aggravation between farmers and walkers.
Lord Spens: My Lords, the walker does not come into this. It is between farmer and rider and it deals only with bridleways, not footpaths.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, bridleways may be walked down by walkers. As I pointed out earlier, if the bridleway becomes rutted the walker is inclined to go to the side. I also said "rider". I would remind your Lordships that you are taking a walk or a ride in the country and not in Parliament Square. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, did not tell your Lordships which

635
ection of the British Horse Society supported this one and which section did not.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers, may I ask whether it is really so that electric fences are connected to the mains? It sounds rather dangerous and frightening for anybody.
The Earl of Avon: I shall leave that rather technical question to the noble Lord, Lord Spens. My own reading is the same as that of the noble Baroness: they should not be so connected.
I have listened carefully to the comments but I do not feel that this is a problem which warrants new legislation. The Government accept what has been said about the effect on horses if they come into contact with electric fences; but we have not seen or heard any evidence to indicate that electric fences cause a serious problem to horses and their riders on bridleways. Bridleways are usually of a reasonable width and these fences are usually clearly visible. It is surely up to the rider to keep his horse away from a fence, and for young people who are learning to ride horses to be trained so to do. If this legislation is passed, it will mean that local authorities will feel obliged to investigate cases in which it is alleged that danger or annoyance is being caused by an electric fence alongside a bridleway. I do not think we should be imposing additional tasks without ample justification. The Government are not convinced that such justification exists in this case, and are therefore unable to support the amendment. As my noble friend pointed out, where an electric fence is causing an obstruction to a right of way that is a different matter and can be dealt with under existing legislation. The Government feel that it is an unnecessary and additional piece of legislation.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I would not know the internal workings of the British Horse Society but they briefed me on this and it is they who say that they have quite a number of instances of accidents occurring as a result of contact with electric fences. I have a letter which draws my attention to the fact, saying that what makes the amendment so necessary is the probable increase in the use of permanently-sited mains-electric fencing. This gives a sharper shock than the portable battery-powered fences now used. Mains-electric fencing is happening. It is a particular danger to horses because they are thin-skinned animals, are iron shod and are often sweating. Therefore, they are much more susceptible to electric shock. However, the Government do not appear to be interested in the amendment at the moment. I shall send it back to the British Horse Society with the suggestion that they get it taken up in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 176B:
After Clause 48 insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of wardens for footpaths and bridleways
. A local authority may appoint such number of persons as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects a footpath or bridleway which is both in the countryside and in the area of the authority, and the purpose for which wardens may be so appointed is to advise and assist the public in connection with the use of the path or way.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved two
636
amendments in Committee about appointing wardens. The first was accepted. I understood that the second one was going to be accepted but no amendment has appeared from the Government. Could I have a nod from the Front Bench opposite if this is going to be accepted? I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not need to say more than we accept this amendment.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 176C:
After Clause 48 insert the following new clause:
("Restoration of eroded footpaths and bridleways
. When a footpath or bridleway ceases to exist due to natural causes, it shall be a duty of the highway authority to restore the continuity of the path or way, either by creating by agreement or order a new highway or by reconstructing that part of the highway which has ceased to exist, except where the physical circumstances make such restoration of the continuity impracticable.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. We come back, restricting it to footpaths and bridleways because the Government have objected to it going any wider. The amendment would ensure that where a footpath or bridleway ceases to exist because of some natural erosion or other problem the highway authority would restore the continuity where that was practicable. We have altered the last couple of lines of the amendment to say that if the physical circumstances made it impracticable there would not be a duty on the highway authority; for example, if continuing erosion or some other continuing problem made restoration impossible. That was a point that the Government made in Committee, and that is now met.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said at Committee stage that when a highway ceases to exist through natural causes it is clearly right that consideration should be given as to whether it ought to be replaced. But, as the law stands at the moment, there is no requirement for such consideration to take place, and I hope that this amendment will meet the noble Earl's wishes as well as those of noble Lords who spoke at Committee stage.
There is one serious problem which is worth mentioning and which we did not mention at Committee stage—that is, that what often happens when erosion takes place is that the public make their own way round the gap. Of course, that will often be to the detriment of the landowner or occupier, since people will be walking on land where there has not been a public right of way up to that point. So, by requiring the authority to take action, the landowner or occupier can if necessary be compensated for that inconvenience. It is a small point, but there did seem to be a good deal of support for it at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I just ask what exactly is "impracticable"? If something is extremely expensive is that to be considered to be impracticable? I can understand that if something is going to be eroded again that would be impracticable, but what about cost?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I acknowledge that this amendment is more restricted in scope than the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved during the Committee stage. Since that debate, the matter has been discussed by the Rights of Way

637
Committee (the Spicer Committee) and I understand that strongly opposed views were expressed there.
I said in Committee that I thought it was debatable whether a highway authority should in all circumstances be obliged to replace or restore an eroded highway and quoted as an example land-slip where restoration or replacement was impossible or pointless, having regard to the continuing nature of the problem. That sort of case has to a certain extent been taken care of by the proposed exception now included in the amendment, which I expect the noble Lord will be explaining to my noble friend. There will, however, be other cases in which restoration would not, I think, be reasonable, such as the existence of a nearby path, providing an adequate alternative route.
Where public paths along cliffs or river banks are lost by erosion, and this has the effect of path-users having to make long detours, I believe that authorities would normally give sympathetic consideration to using the powers they already have to create new paths by agreement or order, but I do not think that it should be made obligatory. This is, of course, in line with this Government's philosophy that local authorities' statutory duties should be lessened rather than increased. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment. I am sure that he will take those views into account.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Burton, the intention of the word "impracticable" was to ensure that where it would be unreasonably expensive for one reason or another it would not be necessary for the authority to restore the path, and I can see that the drafting could be improved at that point. I would be quite happy with "impracticable" or "unreasonable" and I think that the concept of unreasonableness is one which is understood by the courts which would have to decide this.
It is not a major point, but I do think there are considerable advantages for landowners in this, in that, where paths become eroded, it is almost inevitable that the public will simply move to one side or the other and it would be helpful from the point of view of both the user and the landowner if the authority had a requirement to restore, or, if not, to provide an alternative which would allow the landowner some compensation. But, if the Spicer Committee could not reach agreement, I suppose we should not press it. On the other hand, when they do reach agreement it seems the Government are not prepared to implement that either; so we all find ourselves in difficulties either way. However, I do not want to prolong the matter now. I hope that the Spicer Committee may be able to have another look at the point and reach some agreement on what seems to be a minor but helpful matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 176D:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Decision by appointee of Secretary of State
.—(1) The Secretary of State may arrange for all decisions to which this section applies, or any class of such decisions or any one such decision, to be made by a person appointed by him for the purpose instead of by himself, and a decision made under this section by a person so appointed shall be treated as a decision of the Secretary of State.
(2) This section applies—

(a) to a decision on an appeal to the Secretary of State under section 29 of the 1949 Act (draft maps and statements) or the proviso to section 33(5) of that Act (revised maps and statements);

(b) to a decision on a representation or objection made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act (drafts of revised maps and statements);

(c) to a decision on an opposed draft order prepared by a surveying authority under sections 39 or 40 of this Act;

(d) to a decision on an opposed draft order prepared by an authority under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (rights of way affected by development);

(e) to a decision on an opposed draft right of way extinguishment order prepared by an authority under section 3(1) of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946;

(f) to a decision on an opposed draft public path creation order, public path extinguishment order or public path diversion order prepared by an authority under section 26, 118 or 119 of the Highways Act 1980.

(3) Accordingly section 29(6) and proviso (c) to section 33(5) of the 1949 Act, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12 to this Act, paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 shall so far as they require the Secretary of State to give any person an opportunity of being heard, have effect in a case where a person is appointed to make a decision under this section as if they required the person appointed to give that opportunity.
(4) The Secretary of State may terminate or vary any arrangement made under subsection (1) above and, in particular, he may appoint a different person to make a decision under this section instead of the person first appointed to make it.
(5) Where by virtue of subsection (4) above a particular decision falls to be made by the Secretary of State or any other person instead of the person first appointed to make it, anything done by or in relation to the latter shall be treated as having been done by or in relation to the former.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this goes with the other long list. I beg to move.
Clause 55 [Minor amendments]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 44, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 167ZA, which has been accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 177ZA:
Page 44, line 40, after ("1949") insert (", sections 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this follows an amendment which was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Middleton, and we have taken note of the Government's criticisms of it. This amendment would ensure that the clauses mentioned in the amendment would be subject to Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, which obliges a Minister, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission or the local authority to have regard to agriculture. Parts II and III of this Bill already carry this obligation and this merely puts it into those clauses. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment, so I shall not elaborate at this stage any further, unless they say, No. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said at the Committee stage, we did not include Parts I and IV of this Bill in our amendment to the 1968 Act, because the Government thought that there was little or nothing to be gained by so doing. This, in point of fact, is still our view. Of course, we accept that Ministers need to bear in mind all aspects of Government policy when taking decisions and this would happen whatever was written into the Act. What we would not expect is that the NCC, in relation to those judgments which are purely scientific concerning species, should confuse their advice by reference to other matters. However, in view of my noble friend's arguments, I will undertake to give further consideration to the possibility of tabling an amendment at the Third Reading.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I see. I am not sure whether or not my noble friend is accepting this amendment. If not, I shall have to delay the House. Is he accepting? If he nods his head, I shall of course withdraw the amendment at this stage. He is nodding. Then I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if Amendment No. 177A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 178 or 179.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 45, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Section 22 of the Water Act 1973 (duties with regard to nature conservation and amenity) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (3) the words "not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve" shall be omitted; and

(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(4) In the performance of its functions under this or any other enactment a water authority shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council before undertaking, or giving permission to others to undertake, any schemes, operations or activities which might affect the special interest of any area of land to which subsection (3) applies.
(5) Subsection (4) shall not apply to any emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) are notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of that operation.
(6) References in this section to water authorities shall include references to internal drainage boards and the reference in subsection (3) above to the water authority in whose area the land is situated shall include reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to press this amendment, because I warmly welcome Amendment No. 179, which the Government have tabled to meet a point which we raised at Committee stage. I should just briefly like to ask for the Government's comments on the points which I have raised in Amendment No. 177A, which are another attempt to ask the regional water authorities, in particular, that consultation takes place between the Nature Conservancy Council and the water authorities, where work is being done which affects sites of special scientific interest or areas in which the NCC are particularly interested. I shall not delay matters any further. I am sure that the Government understand the effect of the amendment and I really am interested in hearing their response, after which, as long as the response is
640
reasonably adequate, I shall be happy to withdraw it and let the Government move Amendments Nos. 178 and 179. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in part this amendment is designed to place the same conservation obligations on the inland drainage boards as already apply to the water authorities under Section 22 of the Water Act. That was the purpose of our Amendment No. 178, which, as the noble Lord has kindly said, is acceptable.
The other purpose of this amendment is to add to the conservation obligation in Section 22. The water authorities would be obliged to consult the NCC before they undertake, or permit any schemes, operations or activities which might affect the special interest of any area to which Section 22(3) of the Water Act 1973 applies, except in the case of emergency operations. That obligation would be a counterpart to the requirement which already lies on the NCC in Section 22(3), to notify the water authority of areas that are of special interest and which may be affected by the authority's schemes, operations or activities. What is suggested, therefore, is requiring the water authority, when notified by the NCC, to consult the NCC before going ahead with a proposal, except in emergencies. That is not an objectionable idea to the Government and we will consider the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Avon could say this: when a water authority has been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council, will there be any obligation upon it to take such steps as are indicated by the Nature Conservancy Council to avoid damage of a kind, for example, like lowering the water table which would affect the vegetation upon which wildlife depends? Would it oblige the water authority to avoid damage to the banks of watercourses where kingfishers are known to make their nests, and so on? Or will in fact the water authority always have the last word, despite any notice given to the water authority by the Nature Conservancy Council?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord's question. It might speed things up; because then I can go on to withdraw the amendment. The fact of the matter is that water authorities do not at the moment even have to discuss their proposals with the Nature Conservancy Council, let alone take any notice of anything which the Nature Conservancy Council might say to them. The effect of the amendment still would not be to require water authorities to take any notice of what the Nature Conservancy Council says to them, but it would at least ensure that consultation takes place. This happens in the case of some water authorities but not others. The Government have accepted the spirit of this amendment, for which I am grateful. It is another important step forward. With their next two amendments, which I welcome now in order to save me saying anything when we get to them, we have a very reasonable number of steps to resolve some of the problems which have arisen between nature conservationists and water authorities in a number of areas. I hope that the noble Earl will be in a position to bring forward the amendment which he has suggested the Government will

641
consider by Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 178 and 179:
Page 45, line 1, leave out ("section 22(3)") and insert ("subsection (3) of section 22").
Page 45, line 3, at end insert ("and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
("(4) References in this section to water authorities shall include references to internal drainage boards and the reference in subsection (3) above to the water authority in whose area the land is situated shall include reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I have already said sufficient on both amendments. I beg to move.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 45, line 3, at end insert—
("(7) In section 2(8) of the Countryside Act 1968 for the words "for encouraging a proper standard of behaviour on the part of persons resorting to the countryside "there shall be substituted the words" and for explaining to people visiting the countryside their rights and their obligations ".").
The noble Lord said: We had a fairly long discussion about this amendment in Committee and I do not intend to repeat any of it. The noble Earl very kindly wrote me a letter saying that the Government would put down an amendment reflecting the discussion which we had in Committee. They did not, so I have. I have changed the amendment from the one at the Committee stage in a sincere attempt to meet entirely the criticisms which were made of my amendment which we discussed then. A number of noble Lords and my noble friend Lady White felt that my amendment at the Committee stage did not accurately reflect the concept of there being a balance between the obligations and the rights of those visiting the countryside. I accept that my wording was open to misinterpretation. I hope that this amendment is not. As the Government said that they would be tabling an amendment and they have not managed to do so, I hope that this one will be acceptable to them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we come back to our last discussion on much the same points as we have had quite frequently throughout the Bill. Although we have absolutely no objection to it, we do not think that the amendment is really necessary. It was argued that the phrase "a proper standard of behaviour" is a little old-fashioned. In view of this line of thought, we promised to look at it again.
We are, however, clear that the formulation in Section 2(8) of the 1968 Act is entirely adequate to permit the Countryside Commission to do exactly what is wanted. And I can give the House an assurance that, in their future publicity, the commission will invariably strive to achieve a balance between explaining the rights as well as the obligations upon the public when they visit the countryside. And they will certainly not overlook the importance of stressing
642
that visitors should not do things which might upset or disturb the interests of local people.
Given this assurance, the only argument that remains for accepting the amendment is that it would improve the phraseology of the Act. While f do not necessarily disagree with that point of view, I wonder whether it is sufficient reason for a legislative change.
There is, moreover, a positive argument for retaining the existing wording; namely, that while it clearly embraces advice on both rights and obligations, it goes further and covers advice on the things that people ought to do, or which it is desirable for them to do, whereas the expression "rights and obligations" sounds as if it is only concerned with legal rights and obligations. I am sure that your Lordships will not wish to exclude advice on the former matters merely for the sake of emphasising the importance of advice on the latter. I leave the matter to the noble Lord. Obviously we do not feel very strongly about it, but those are our reasons.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think I ought to press this amendment because the noble Earl actually said to me, in a letter on 3rd March:
"Rights in the countryside. An amendment will he put down to reflect the discussion about 466"
—which was the debate we had at the Committee stage. There was widespread agreement that the wording was an anachronism. If my memory is right, I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—he is not here to correct me, and I apologise if I am wrong—said that the Countryside Commission would be quite happy to see the wording changed and the Government would. I really think this is an improvement and it is sufficiently important to be worth making, and that seemed to be the view of those who spoke at the Committee stage. I should like to press this on the Government. Obviously if they think it can be improved when they come to look at the Bill, they will be able to do so.
Clause 56 [Repeals and savings]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 179B:
Page 45, line 13, at end insert—
("(3A) The repeal by this section of paragraphs 22 to 33 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972 shall not affect the operation of those paragraphs in relation to any survey or review begun before the commencement date.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Schedule 14 provides for the repeal of the transitional provisions in the Local Government Act 1972. These dealt with the consequences of local government reorganisation and the preparation and revision of definitive maps. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the repeal of these provisions is not disturbed by the continuation of anything already being carried out under these provisions at the commencement of the new procedure. I beg to move.
Schedule 14 [Enactments repealed]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 180:

643
Page 87, column 3, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert ("Section 23").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 167ZA which has been accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 180A and 180B:
Page 87, line 12, at end insert—

("1963 c. 36.

The Deer Act 1963.

In Schedule 2, in paragraph 1 the words "of less gauge than 12 bore" and in paragraph 4 the words from "other than" onwards.").

line 29, at end insert—

("1970 c. 30.

The Conservation of Seals Act 1970.

In section 10(1)(c), the word "or" immediately following sub-paragraph (ii)".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 180A and 180B en bloc. These are consequential on amendments which your Lordships accepted last week.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 180BA:
Page 87, line 30, column 3, after (" 20 ") insert—

("in paragraph 1(2)(a), the words "in the London Gazette and" and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 180C:
Page 87, line 38, at end insert—

("1973 c. 57.

The Badgers Act 1973.

Sections 6 and 7.

Section 8(2)(c).

In section 11, the definitions of "area of special protection" and "authorised person".").

The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 180CA:
Page 87, line 39, column 2, at end insert ("Council").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects an error in the reference to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 180CB:
Page 87, line 39, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 1, paragraphs 3, 5, 7 and 12(a) and (c).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 180D:
Page 88, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 134, subsection (3) and in subsection (5) the words "(3) or".

In section 135(1), the words "6 or" and "6 weeks or".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Clause 57 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 45, line 29, after ("sections") insert ("Areas of special scientific interest)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 167ZA which has been accepted. I beg to move.
In the Title:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 182 and 183:
Line 6, after ("amend") insert ("the Badgers Act 1973 and"). after ("amend") insert ("the Deer Act 1963, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, the Badgers Act 1973 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments 182 and 183 en bloc. These are also consequential on amendments we had earlier. I think it is nice to end the Report stage of the Bill on an all-party note, with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and myself proposing Amendment No. 183, and also with amendments for which the Government gave us some very substantial drafting assistance—the amendments to the badgers, the deer and the seals Acts. I think noble Lords on all sides of the House were extremely grateful for the constructive way in which the Government responded to appeals from noble Lords of all parties and those who are not in a party at all—yet, anyhow. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking once again the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench for their at times sympathetic and at other times not so sympathetic but always courteous consideration of the many amendments with strange letters after them that they have had to consider during the Report stage. We are very grateful. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, may I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in this respect? I am sure all noble Lords are deeply grateful to the Government.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, may I on behalf of this Front Bench say how much we appreciate the help given by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite and their supporters? I hope we have given a little bit away. I also pay a compliment to all my noble friends on this side who have helped to get the Bill through.

Sion College Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  NORTHERN IRELAND FOOD PRODUCTS: IMPROVED PROCESSING AND MARKETING
  NORTHERN IRELAND FOOD PRODUCTS: IMPROVED PROCESSING AND MARKETING
  NORTHERN IRELAND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS: MARKETING
  NORTHERN IRELAND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS: MARKETING
  MUSIC: TUITION IN STATE SCHOOLS
  MUSIC: TUITION IN STATE SCHOOLS
  ESPERANTO: TEACHING
  ESPERANTO: TEACHING
  EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES: ABUSE
  EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES: ABUSE
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST: INSPECTIONS, NOTIFICATIONS, &c.
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST: INSPECTIONS, NOTIFICATIONS, &c.
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST: CAITHNESS
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST: CAITHNESS
  NEW COMPANIES: REGISTRATIONS IN SCOTLAND
  NEW COMPANIES: REGISTRATIONS IN SCOTLAND
  AIRLINE PASSENGERS: SCOTLAND
  AIRLINE PASSENGERS: SCOTLAND